Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION

Accounts ordered,
relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1949."—[Mr. H. Wilson.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

X-ray Apparatus

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Health to what extent medical X-ray apparatus built in this country is dependent on the U.S. for deep therapy tubes and valves; and whether steps are being taken to increase capacity for their manufacture in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Production of deep therapy tubes and valves is being developed by manufacturers but for the present we are almost entirely dependent upon imports.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that this dependence upon foreign countries for deep therapy tubes is a serious matter and a weakness for our own industry; and is he prepared to consider whether some form of loan might be given to enable more intensive research work to be carried out?

Mr. Bevan: I do not know that loans will help the position at all. This is highly technical and skilled work and is being developed. I have met some of the manufacturers.

Mental Hospital Patients (Outside Work)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Health under what conditions patients in mental hospitals are employed on outside work; what steps

are taken to see that any such work is conducive to their rehabilitation and that they are not given alcohol when so employed; and whether the agreement of their next-of-kin is obtained.

Mr. Bevan: The conditions are determined by the Medical Superintendent, who decides what is suitable for the patients concerned, and whether they may properly have any alcoholic refreshment. The agreement of the next-of-kin is not obtained, nor is it necessary.

Mr. Greenwood: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him, so far as the kind of work is concerned, whether he will discourage any repetition of the practice by which until recently mental patients were employed as beaters by the Mid-Essex Coursing Club and caused considerable distress among their fellow patients by their unpleasant descriptions of the sufferings of the hare?

Mr. Bevan: I should have thought myself that if outside activity of this kind is agreeable and good for patients it ought to be undertaken by the institution as part of the healing treatment of the patients and not, incidentally, for somebody else's benefit.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not obvious that some patients from mental hospitals have escaped and are now members of His Majesty's Government?

Medicine Bottles

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Health why no charge is made for medicine bottles supplied under the National Health Service; what is being done to maintain an adequate supply; and what action is being taken to prevent wastage of bottles.

Mr. Bevan: These matters are under consideration.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the number of bottles which have been issued and the very small percentage returned in the same condition?

Mr. Bevan: I could not give that estimate. I think it would require an enormous amount of clerical work to collect it and I should imagine that the amount of work involved in getting the information would exceed the expenditure on the bottles.

Mr. Harrison: Is there any indication of when these considerations will result in some action from my right hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Bevan: After all, the Health Service has only been in operation for six months and it is necessary to collect information so that we can take action which is intelligent action. It will not be very long.

Mr. Harrison: It is a very simple matter.

Mr. Bevan: Oh!

Mr. Odey: Could the Minister give a projected average per month of these medicine bottles?

Mr. Bevan: No, I cannot.

Spectacles, Newport

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that citizens of Newport have to wait for eyeglasses as long as 17 weeks in some cases; and whether he will accelerate delivery.

Mr. Bevan: I am aware that there are difficulties generally. All practicable steps are being taken to arrange for increased production.

Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the position is improving or getting worse?

Mr. Bevan: The position is improving, certainly. A very large number of persons have had spectacles who formerly would not have had them.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although delay is not so long in all areas as it apparently is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman), some difficulty arises from the fact that there is no arrangement for assessing the relative urgency of applications and working out a priority scheme for urgent cases?

Mr. Bevan: Discussions have already taken place with ophthalmic opticians to try to obtain priority for urgent cases.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend say how many years the citizens of Great Britain waited for spectacles before the scheme was introduced?

Mr. Bevan: It is very evident that there must have been a very large number of people in almost all classes of the community who did not have glasses before 5th July.

Mr. Marlowe: Since they have had to wait so long, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the glasses are of sufficient magnifying power for them to see their meat ration?

Mr. Bevan: It is also one of the incidental disabilities of the service that they will be able to read the nonsense of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is it impossible for those who want spectacles different from standard to obtain them by payment of an extra sum?

Mr. Bevan: No. It is possible for persons who desire to have frames which are superior to those issued under the National Health Service to make a payment, but we have protected the citizen by negotiating with the concerns as to what the overall payment shall be. Where glasses are ordered of a different kind and are necessary for clinical reasons, they can be obtained free.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long it will be before children can be issued with splinterless glasses which they had prior to the Act?

Mr. Bevan: I am sure parents would not wish to restore children to the situation in which they were before the Health Service, but the question of splinterless glass, where medically necessary, for example in epileptic cases, is being urgently considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Hotel, Buxton (Squatters)

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, although in accordance with the advice contained in his departmental letter NW/935/717A/2/2 dated 2nd November, 1948, application was duly made by the Buxton Corporation both to his Department and to the Regional Planning Officer for authority to rehouse on the Lad Manlow site the squatters in the Empire Hotel, no answer has been received from either Department; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Bevan: I regret the delay in dealing with this difficult case and I am taking steps to clear it up as quickly as possible.

Local Authorities (Lists)

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Health when he expects to receive revised housing lists from local authorities; and if he will publish in the next Local Authority Housing Returns the appropriate figures.

Mr. Bevan: I have asked for returns by 31st March. After the figures have been examined I will consider the question of publication.

Mr. Bing: Will the Minister also consider the cases of people who, because of a variation between the points schemes of the various authorities, are not on the housing list of any authority?

Mr. Bevan: I am afraid that as this is a screening of the lists of the various authorities it would be awfully difficult to consider people who are not on the lists, because they would be an unknown quantity.

Permanent Houses

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Health the reasons for the decline recently in permanent house building; and what is the average projected figure per month for the ensuing year.

Mr. Bevan: The number of new permanent houses completed in the 12 months ended 30th November, 1948, was 205,274 as compared with 121,082 for the 12 months ended 30th November, 1947, and the fluctuations month by month have been no more than was to be expected in a programme of this magnitude. The programme has now reached a stage where it can be judged on its achievements better than on forecasts.

Mr. Austin: What is the average projected figure for a month for the ensuing year, which is asked for in the second part of my Question, to which the Minister has not replied?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot give the average for the ensuing year until the year is complete, because the average would be the number at the end of the year, divided by 12.

Mr. Austin: The projected average?

Mr. Bevan: I cannot give the projected average, because it would depend on the actual achievement.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: May we take it that the figures given by the Minister refer to new houses and would not reflect the decline in private enterprise housing?

Mr. Bevan: The figure refers to new houses alone and not any other form of accommodation. In regard to the second part of the supplementary question, that has been answered so frequently that I should have thought hon. Members opposite were tired of the answer.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend also make it clear that these permanent houses are substantially larger than those built before the war, but, in view of the fact that the United Kingdom interim plan submitted to the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation provides an overall expenditure on new house building of 1,000 million dollars for the year 1949–50, will he say if he anticipates that this will involve an increase or a decrease?

Mr. Bevan: I have not the figures to which my hon. Friend refers in my mind at the moment, but obviously expenditure upon one form of social service competes with expenditure upon another part of the social service so long as the global figure remains the same. If we tie ourselves, as I think we must, to the relationship between the total expenditure on social services and the whole capital expenditure of the country, we must then decide how we are to dispose that expenditure over the whole social service claims.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that only last year the Minister of Health projected a figure of 300,000 houses for 1948, why is it impossible to project a figure for 1949?

Mr. Bevan: I have no recollection of a projected figure of 300,000 for 1948 and where the hon. Gentleman gets that I do not know.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister explain why there is such good progress in England, but not in Scotland? Is it due to the fact that labour and materials should be diverted to Scotland?

Mr. Bevan: It would be no more an easy task to divert labour from England to Scotland than from Scotland to England and I believe the rate of completion in Scotland is now very satisfactory indeed.

Mr. Hughes: Oh, no.

Police Officers

Mr. Austin: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consult with local authorities with a view to accelerating the provision of houses for police officers.

Mr. Bevan: Consultations with local authorities already take place as and when occasion arises. Provision is also made in the housing programme for the building of certain numbers of houses by police authorities.

Mr. Austin: Will my right hon. Friend regard as one of the effects which must arise today the critical position in regard to crime figures and the difficulty in police recruiting?

Mr. Bevan: I am always in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on these matters, and more than 1,000 houses have already been included in the local authority housing programme for police officers and more are in contemplation.

Captain John Crowder: Has the right hon. Gentleman given any orders, or directions, to local authorities to give priority to married policemen who have no houses in which to live?

Mr. Bevan: I issued a circular on 9th October, 1945, in consultation with the Home Office asking local authorities to take these matters into consideration, but I cannot ask that an overriding priority should be given to an able-bodied police officer as against a consumptive civilian.

Mr. Lipson: Are these houses intended for police officers in addition to the allocation made to local authorities at the zonal conference? If not, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be additional?

Mr. Bevan: They are not in addition, they are part of the general housing programme, as indeed they must be, because a police officer who goes into a house releases a house for someone else. I cannot add to the housing programme until

Parliament adds to the physical resources of the country.

Census

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a census of Britain's houses on the lines of the 1931 Census, to give a clear picture of the nature and conditions of the nation's dwellings.

Mr. Bevan: One of the objects of the next Census will be to obtain additional data concerning the housing of the people.

Sir W. Smithers: If the Minister knew more about his job, would he not be aware that his present policy is preventing building of the maximum number of houses and that if he only restored free enterprise to builders of £1,300 houses he would get double the number of houses built?

Mr. Bevan: It would of course be possible, by permitting people to build houses where they liked, to build more houses for some people who could afford to pay, at the expense of those who could not.

Sir W. Smithers: That is most unfair. I said £1,300 houses.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers' Salaries (London Scale)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Education what progress has now been made with the claim for the extension of London area scales of teachers' salaries to teachers in Kingston, Surbiton and district.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I have received a letter making the claim to which the hon. Member refers and I have replied that the matter received full consideration recently by the Burnham Committee, and I see no sufficient grounds for asking that Committee to consider it afresh.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it a fact that the Burnham Committee was unable to come to any definite decision one way or another? Is it not also a fact that this matter has been under discussion for 11 years now, and that the right hon. Gentleman's Department is still under the pathetic illusion that the cost-of-living in


Kingston is less than in Richmond, Wimbledon and Twickenham? Is it not time to come up to date?

Mr. Tomlinson: It has been under discussion not for 11 years but, to my knowledge, 20 years. All the time this difficulty of differentiating in the area has been apparent. What was discussed on the last occasion by the Burnham Committee was the Local Government Boundary Commission Report, and it was decided that they would consider this matter afresh when the Report of the Boundary Commission had been implemented.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the Minister give an undertaking that as soon as that Report is available the matter will be reconsidered afresh and not left for another 20 years?

Mr. Tomlinson: I did not say available, I said implemented.

Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs (Grant)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Education what assistance from public funds is given to the National Association of Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs; and if he is satisfied that this is a non-political body.

Mr. Tomlinson: The National Association of Girls Clubs and Mixed Clubs receives direct grant from my Department under the Social and Physical Training Grant Regulations. The amount of this grant for the current year is £20,500. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Hughes: While this organisation is doing much good work, may I ask whether the Minister's attention has been drawn to the arrangements for its Christmas Cracker Bazaar at the Mayfair Hotel which was opened by Mrs. Winston Churchill, and where the variety bazaar was presided over by Lady Woolton and Mrs. Walter Elliot?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—In, view of the lack of variety in these arrangements does the Minister consider that it was due to the political bias or the political innocence of its organisers?

Mr. Tomlinson: No, I do not think that there was any political bias. As a matter of fact, if my hon. Friend had

gone back to the previous year he would have found that the wife of the Prime Minister presided and the Lord Chancellor opened the bazaar.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gallacher: In order to show that there is no bias, will the Minister arrange for the next Christmas bazaar to be opened by Mrs. Harry Pollitt?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would point out that the Minister has no jurisdiction in this matter, and we do not determine grants according to the names of the people who open the bazaar.

Nursery Schools

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Education whether he has a target for the provision of nursery schools and nursery classes for children aged two and under five; what is the estimate for the number to be accommodated during 1949; and how does this compare with the numbers accommodated during 1948 and 1947.

Mr. Tomlinson: In drawing up their development plans authorities generally have assumed that, at any rate in urban areas, up to 50 per cent. of the children between two and five may wish to attend nursery schools or classes. I do not expect a substantial increase in the number of children in nursery schools and classes in 1949, although there are plans to provide some more schools in industrial areas.

Mr. Piratin: Cannot the Minister give a precise answer showing how many he expects in view of the fact that only about 6 per cent. of the children of these ages are being catered for in these nursery classes and schools? If more women had facilities for their children it might help industrial activity.

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give an estimate of the number that will be provided for but arrangements have been made that, where in industrial areas they can be of economic benefit to the country, plans for nursery schools shall go through.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that it would be much better that, where possible, children of this early age should remain at home and be looked after by their mothers?

School Meals (Assistance)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Education what is the latest date at which he has information concerning the implementation by local education authorities themselves of Circular 97 on the provision of outside assistance in the school meals service.

Mr. Tomlinson: 1st July, 1946, was the date of the last return which I asked all local education authorities to send me about the employment of midday assistants in the school meals service.

Mr. Piratin: If July, 1946, is the latest date of the Minister's information how was he able, on 2nd December last year, to answer a Question of mine to the effect that he was satisfied that the authorities were taking steps to implement that circular?

Mr. Tomlinson: Because the representatives of the teachers and of the local authorities have been informed again and again of this circular, and any request or complaint made by local authorities is inquired into at once. Only one such complaint has been made and action is now being taken on that.

Mr. Ralph Morley: What action does my right hon. Friend's Ministry take in regard to those authorities which are not implementing Circular 97?

Mr. Tomlinson: They are instructed that it is their duty to do so.

Dental Officers (Salary Scale)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Minister of Education what progress is being made in the consideration of the scale of salaries for school dental officers to avoid the disparity of pay that exists between the school dental officer and the dental practitioner working under the Ministry of Health, which results in wholesale retirements of dentists from the school service; and what effect this will have on the salaries structure of local authorities.

Mr. Tomlinson: The local authority associations have asked for a meeting with representatives of the Government on this and related questions and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are seeing them shortly.

Mr. Harrison: I hope that the Minister realises that the National Health Service does not provide any alternative to this essential service, and that he will take

into consideration the essential need to reach some agreement before the present service is completely wrecked?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN (U.K. CITIZENSHIP)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations why the United Kingdom High Commissioner for India has sent circulars to a number of British subjects of European origin asking them whether they wish to be included in a record of potential citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and whether this action was taken on his instructions.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): In view of the coming into force of the British Nationality Act on 1st January it is the duty of the United Kingdom High Commissioners in India and Pakistan to register those persons whose acquisition of United Kingdom citizenship will depend on registration under Sections 6, 7 and 12 (6) of the Act. It will, moreover, be desirable, for such reasons as the issue and renewal of United Kingdom passports, to have on record as full a list as possible of all United Kingdom citizens in those Dominions, even if their citizenship is not dependent on registration. For these reasons, I instructed the High Commissioners to take steps to bring the provisions of the Act to the notice of British subjects of European origin and to invite them to submit evidence of their qualifications for United Kingdom citizenship.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that whatever the reasons for this action, the intimation to people who have always regarded themselves as citizens of this country that they are now to apply to be regarded as potential citizens has come as something of a shock? Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct the High Commissioners to present the matter to these people in a somewhat more helpful and lucid manner?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I greatly regret the shock, if there has been one. The phrase is a technical one arising out of the Act. I hope that my answer will serve the purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in view. I will also see if there is anything more that I can do.

EIRE (TREATY OBLIGATIONS)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether, in view of the fact that the Republic of Ireland Bill has now been passed into law, he has called the attention of the Government of Eire to the contractual obligations involved in the Treaty of December, 1921, and expressly reserved by the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council delivered on the 6th June, 1935; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: No, Sir. I think there would be no advantage in taking the course which the hon. Member suggests.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on all previous occasions when an amendment of the Agreement of 1921 was passed it was bilateral, as it was accepted by Acts of Parliament passed by this House, whereas now there is a complete repudiation of the 1921 Treaty, without His Majesty's Government even being informed, as the Lord Chancellor told us in another place?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not sure that I followed all the implications of what the hon. Member said, but I think I could accept very few of them.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement by the ex-Attorney-General in this House to the effect that the Statute of Westminster has no effect on this Treaty?

Mr. Noel-Baker: There was also a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1935 which the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has quoted many times in this House, which said something rather different.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Pig and Poultry Appliances (Exports to Eire)

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated quantity of pig and poultry appliances to be exported to Eire during 1949; and what revenue he estimates will result.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I regret that information on which to base such an estimate is not available.

Matches (Distribution)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ensure a more adequate distribution of matches to smaller towns and boroughs for residents in the rural areas; and whether, in view of the large stocks held by a well-known British manufacturer in Gloucester, he will afford greater facilities for home allocation and distribution throughout Worcestershire and the Midlands.

Mr. H. Wilson: My Department, through the Matches Control, maintains a close watch on the distribution of matches, and in the light of reports by its travelling inspectors the Control is constantly adjusting supplies so as to ensure that each area gets its fair share, and that overall stocks are not unduly heavy. I am making inquiries into the specific complaint of scarcity in the areas referred to by the hon. Member and will write to him as soon as they are completed.

Mr. De la Bère: Is this not a matchless Government? It pays lip service to the wants of the people, but never does anything really practical to assist those in the rural areas.

Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to increase the Government controls on the match industry I am prepared to consider any representations he might wish to make.

Mr. De la Bère: I do not want any more controls; I want common sense.

X-Ray Film

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to increase the supply of X-ray film available to hospitals, in view of the increased demand coupled with decreased supplies for home consumption.

Mr. H. Wilson: Supplies of X-ray film to the home market have been increasing, but not enough to meet the increased demand since the war, and especially in the last six months. Manufacturers have


been doing all that they can to increase production, and after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am asking them to supply a larger proportion of their output to the home market. There is, however, a shortage of X-ray film, not only here but throughout the world, and my right hon. Friend and I would make an urgent appeal to doctors, hospitals and all others who use it to exercise the utmost economy.

Mr. Chamberlain: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he would bear in mind that hospitals are facing a most serious situation in this respect, and that the Middlesex Hospital, in which I am particularly interested, is now working on one week's supply, whereas a year ago it had a three months' stock, and that is a serious position?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, but since a year ago the consumption of this material has increased by over 30 per cent.

Mr. Chamberlain: Yes, but not to that extent.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Is it not a fact that one of the principal reasons for this shortage, which never occurred before, is the virtual elimination of X-ray engineers and the chaos on the distribution side which has been created by the Government's own action?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The principal reason for the shortage is that in spite of increased production the consumption and use of it has increased so very much.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Would the right hon. Gentleman further admit that the amount of money obtained for this film abroad is far greater than the Ministry of Health in this country is prepared to pay and that that is very largely why there is such a great shortage?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The level of exports, which has continued until recently, was the result of the efforts of the manufacturers to export as much as possible. Now we have asked them to cut down exports to meet the home demand.

Cotton Industry

Sir W. Smithers: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered a letter and pamphlet from the Liverpool Cotton Association which have been sent to him; and if, in order to accelerate the economic recovery of Britain he will now re-open the Liverpool Cotton Market.

Mr. H. Wilson: I have considered the letter and pamphlet from the Liverpool Cotton Association, but I am unable to accept the implication that the Liverpool Cotton Market should be re-opened. In this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) on Tuesday last.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that Ministers are appealing for increased exports, especially invisible exports, why close down one of our best export earners? Why not re-open it? And is not this the Communist technique of saying one thing and doing the opposite?

Timber Control (Profits)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade the annual profits made by the Timber Control up to the latest available date.

Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend will find the latest available information on this subject in the "Trading Accounts and Balance Sheets, 1946–47" (House of Commons Paper No. 34 of 1947–48).

Mr. Haire: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the profits enjoyed by the Timber Control are, at least, partly responsible for the present high price of timber?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir.

Dutch Vegetables (Imports)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give an assurance that horticultural growers will be consulted before any further agreements, relating to the import of Dutch vegetable products, are signed with the Dutch Government.

Mr. H. Wilson: Every endeavour is made to ensure that our negotiators are fully acquainted with the views of United Kingdom producers and that their position is taken into account within the


general framework of the negotiations. It would, however, be quite out of the question for the Government to commit themselves to prior consultation, either with horticultural growers or with other groups of United Kingdom producers, before entering into agreements with other Governments.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while welcoming this agreement with Holland which shares so many problems with us at this moment, contact with the horticultural growers in England would have enabled certain aspects of this Treaty to be altered to help home producers without preventing an agreement at all?

Mr. Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that in each bilateral trade negotiation there are hundreds, if not thousands, of commodities covered in trade on both sides. I am sure he will understand, from what he has said about the Netherlands, that in any trade negotiations it is essential to take some of the traditional exports of the country with whom we are dealing if we are to expect them to take some of our traditional exports as well.

Census of Distribution (Postponement)

Mr. C. S. Taylor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now consider postponing the Census of Distribution Plan, to be taken in 1950, owing to the abnormality of business conditions at the present time.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that it is always possible to find some departure from normal trading conditions in any year, and I would not regard the representations that have been made to me about 1949 as sufficient in themselves to justify any postponement. Nevertheless, during the last two months I have received communications from hon. Members on both sides of the House and from many trade organisations. These communications have shown me that many of those engaged in the distributive trades have not become sufficiently acquainted either with the form that the census will take or with their responsibilities in completing the census forms; this is particularly so in the case of small shopkeepers. Since it is fundamental to the success of the census that traders should

fully understand the part they must play, the Government have decided to postpone the Census of Distribution for one year and I shall make the necessary Order as soon as possible. Moreover, many traders have not realised they may, if it is more convenient to them, make a return for their financial year rather than the calendar year 1949.

Machinery Exports

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the President of the Board of Trade with regard to the allocation of permits for machinery to be exported to Poland, with which country during the 10 months ended 31st October, 1948, there was a balance of British exports considerably in excess of imports, if he will consider allotting such machinery to our own Colonies, where the balance of trade is reversed, instead, in order to assist the new Colonial Development Schemes now in need of practically all types of machinery.

Mr. H. Wilson: With very few exceptions the distribution of machinery exports is not subject to control by the Government, and the question of reallocating supplies as suggested does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the West Indies, for example, send us some £26 million worth of goods a year more than we send them, and that on the other hand, Russia, and her satellites such as Poland, send us £26 million worth of goods less than we send them? Can he give any assurance to the House that the overwhelming requirements of the Colonies are taken into account at the time when these trade negotiations are undertaken?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot accept the figures given by my hon. Friend, but I am well aware that the demand for British capital goods exports is far in excess of our capacity to meet it. I can certainly tell him that not only Colonial needs are borne in mind, but the export of capital equipment to the Commonwealth as a whole, including the Colonies, is very much greater than before the war.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend in consultation with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies at the time when these trade agreements are negotiated with other foreign Governments?

Mr. Wilson: I have the closest degree of consultation with all my right hon. Friends before any bilateral trade negotiation begins.

Former Official (Allegations)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has instituted inquiries into allegations made in the course of evidence given in the Central Criminal Court on 29th November, 1948, that an official of his Department had had to be paid in connection with a sale of table-cloths and table napkins at a price exceeding the permitted maximum; and what action he has taken as the result of the observations of the Lord Chief Justice.

Mr. H. Wilson: The police were consulted and the Lord Chief Justice's observations were brought to the notice of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The official against whom the allegations were made ceased to be employed by the Board of Trade in January, 1945, and is now dead.

Granite (Imports)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much granite and marble, respectively, was imported by the United Kingdom in 1948 and 1949; what is the estimated import for 1949; how many British associations will take part in importing granite during 1949; and what was the total production of granite in England, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall in 1948.

Mr. H. Wilson: Seven thousand tons of granite, value £53,000, and 15,713 tons of marble, value £404,000, were imported into the United Kingdom in 1948. No figures are yet available for actual imports in 1949 to date. Imports have been permitted only at the request of the foreign countries concerned, and as part of satisfactory trade agreements with them; the hon. Member will not expect me to forecast what may be the outcome of 1949 trade negotiations with the countries concerned, since these are not yet completed. Import licences will be issued to individual importers and there will be no question of importing through particular trade associations. Total estimated production for England, Scotland, and Wales in 1948 was approximately 4,100,000 tons. Of this Cornish production was approximately 32,000 tons.

Mr. Marshall: May I ask the Minister if, before these negotiations were settled the industry was consulted in any way, because this is a hurt so far as Cornwall is concerned with regard to the importation of granite?

Mr. Wilson: I have already made clear to the hon. Gentleman for what a small proportion of the national output Cornwall is responsible. We are well aware of the views of the industry. They have been very vocal in this matter. I hope certain questions about procedure for imports will be looked after in the negotiations which are being concluded.

Mr. Beechman: As a quarry in Cornwall was shut down, will the Minister be so good as to see that consultations take place with the industry to make sure that our granite is used to the fullest extent possible, especially in the making of roads?

GAS CONSUMERS' COMMITTEE, S.E. REGION

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power when the Gas Consumers' Committee for the South-East Region will be appointed; and whether appropriate bodies have been approached in the matter of the personnel for this Committee.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): Nominations have been invited from all the appropriate bodies and associations. We have not yet received all their replies and I cannot say precisely when the Council will be appointed.

PIT HORSES AND PONIES

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many horses and ponies have been removed from the pits because of old age, infirmity, or other reasons, during 1948; how many of these were humanely destroyed; and how many were sent to homes for rest for horses.

Mr. Robens: For the year ended 30th June, 1948, the number of horses and ponies cast or humanely destroyed because of disease, old age or infirmity


was 1,600. As regards the second part of the Question the information is not available.

Mr. Freeman: What steps, if any, are taken to prevent these ponies being slaughtered for human consumption after leaving the pits?

Mr. Robens: The Department is only responsible for the collection of information as to those which are killed or cast. I have no information on the point raised by my hon. Friend.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Cannot the hon. Gentleman say how many of these ponies are actually sold to dealers irrespective of what happened to them afterwards? The facts are known in his Department, so he should know.

Mr. Robens: No. These figures are not supplied to the Department under the Act.

Mr. Austin: When will modernisation and mechanisation enable us to dispense completely with the use of pit ponies?

Mr. Robens: I replied to a similar question some time ago. I indicated that the number of pit ponies was steadily decreasing and that, in the course of time, pit ponies would no longer be used.

CIVIL DEFENCE ORGANISATION

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use is being made, in building up the new Civil Defence Organisation, of the experience gained by the German Civil Defence Organisation in the late war and of the post-war U.S. experiments.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): Full account is being taken of all available information of this kind in the preparation of plans for the organisation of Civil Defence, in the examination of Civil Defence problems and in the making of arrangements for Civil Defence training. Some of this information has been embodied in publications issued by the Home Office of which I am sending copies to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Can my right hon. Friend say if he has also investigated the results of the Allied bombing of Japan in the recent war?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. My advisers on this subject take very great pains to keep themselves informed of all research wherever it may be conducted.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the organisation to be administered by the scientific adviser for Civil Defence matters.

Mr. Ede: In accordance with the recommendations of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, the conduct of research into scientific problems which arise in connection with Civil Defence planning is undertaken by existing research organisations such as those of the Ministry of Supply and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. It is the responsibility of the Chief Scientific Adviser, working in close association with the Scientific Advisers to the Service Departments and the scientific authorities in other Departments, to define and bring to notice in the appropriate quarter the Civil Defence problems requiring research, and to ensure that all research for Civil Defence is properly co-ordinated. In addition, he himself undertakes, in collaboration with the Departments concerned, research of the kind described by the Advisory Council as operational research. To assist him in his duties the Chief Scientific Adviser has a staff of five scientists.

POLICE FORCE (NUMBERS)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present deficiency in numbers of the Metropolitan Police Force; and whether he is satisfied with the recruitment campaign.

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the public anxiety caused by the recent increase in the incidence of crimes of violence in London; to what extent this increase is due to the fact that the police are insufficient in numbers to discharge their protective


duties adequately; and what steps he is taking to stimulate recruitment to the Metropolitan Police Force.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the Police Force so that it will be able to deal more effectively with the disquieting incidence of crime.

Mr. Ede: I am afraid, Sir, the answer is rather longer than is usually the case. According to the latest available figures, the Metropolitan Police are 4,291 and the county and borough police forces outside London 7,420 men short of establishment. During 1948 there was a net increase of 755 men in the regular strength of the Metropolitan Police and of 2,451 in the forces outside London. The need to improve the rate of recruitment in some parts of the country was one of the reasons for the appointment of the Committee under Lord Oaksey's chairmanship which is now considering police conditions of service. As regards the incidence of crimes of violence in London, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has recently pointed out that the number of armed robberies reported in the Metropolitan Police district in the first 11 months of 1948 was 43, 15 less than in the corresponding period of 1947, and that the percentage of arrests in respect of all robberies in the Metropolitan Police district was 22.9 per cent. greater in 1948 than in 1947. I am nevertheless fully aware of the public concern at the reports of recent crimes of violence, but I should not feel justified in proposing any substantial changes in police conditions of service, with a view to accelerating recruitment, in advance of the Oaksey Committee's Report.

Mr. Skeffington: While I thank the Home Secretary for his full reply, may I ask him how many special constables there are in the Metropolitan Area and how far they relieve the position?

Mr. Ede: Not without notice.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the great urgency of this matter, does the right hon. Gentleman know when the Oaksey Report is likely to be available?

Mr. Ede: I had a conversation myself with Lord Oaksey yesterday and he hopes to have the Report in my hands well before Easter.

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether men now employed in agriculture or coal mining are free to join the Police Force if they wish, or are there still obstacles in their way?

Mr. Ede: No. Two or three months ago, perhaps a little longer, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour removed the bar on these men enlisting in the police forces.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of asking the police authorities to give a little less attention to the more petty forms of traffic offence or to the unnecessary chasing around the streets of barrow boys?

Mr. Ede: It would put me in a quite wrong position with the police forces if I indicated to them, in the light of their knowledge of the particular area they serve, the kind of crime on which they should concentrate.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that where there are traffic lights there are usually enormous numbers of traffic police trying to trap motorists, and that they are really not doing much good?

Mr. Ede: I gave a reply recently which stated that over 700 police were saved in the Metropolitan Police Area alone by the use of traffic lights.

Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask local authorities to do their best to provide suitable accommodation, especially for married policemen because, as he knows, it goes against recruiting if a married man and his wife cannot find suitable accommodation?

Mr. Ede: I am very grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for putting that question. I have made many appeals to housing authorities to help me in this matter. I am certain that the biggest bar to the retention of suitable recruits is the difficulty of providing a married man with a house in the neighbourhood of his employment.

IMPERIAL SERVICE MEDAL

Brigadier Peto: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider recommending the award of the Imperial


Service Medal, in appropriate cases, for those who have completed a total period of meritorious and exemplary service of 25 years either in the Forces or in the Civil Service, or partly in one and partly in the other.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. The Statutes of the Imperial Service Order make it clear that the Order and the Medal were founded for the Civil Service. If service in the Armed Forces were to be put on the same basis as service in the Civil Service in reckoning the qualifying period, this would deprive awards of their special character as a Civil Service distinction. War-time service in the Forces, if pensionable under the Superannuation Acts, does, however, count towards the qualifying period of 25 years for the grant of the Medal.

Brigadier Peto: Will the Prime Minister give any indication whether, by reason of the fact that in the past members of the Indian Civil Service were recipients of a percentage of these medals, there is likely to be any difference in the terms of award in future?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I could not answer that question without notice.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now name the members of the Royal Commission on the Death Penalty.

The Prime Minister: The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission on Capital Punishment with the following terms of reference:
To consider and report whether liability under the criminal law in Great Britain to suffer capital punishment for murder should be limited or modified, and if so, to what extent and by what means, for how long and under what conditions persons who would otherwise have been liable to suffer capital punishment should be detained, and what changes in the existing law and the prison system would be required; and to inquire into and take account of the position in those countries whose experience and practice may throw light on these questions.
I am glad to be able to announce that Sir Ernest Gowers will act as chairman of the Royal Commission and I hope to

be able to give the names of members of the Commission before very long.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Having regard to the importance of this question and to the pace at which some Royal Commissions move, will the Prime Minister do what is possible to expedite the proceedings of this Commission?

The Prime Minister: I cannot very well order a Royal Commission to report within so many days. It must be left to them. Perhaps sometimes the importance and difficulty of the question mean that they have to sit for a long time.

Mr. John Paton: May I ask if the use of the words "limited" or "modified" in these terms of reference would preclude the Commission from recommending the total abolition of the penalty.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It was thought that it would be much more useful if the Royal Commission inquired into modifications or alternatives, because the straight issue of capital punishment is one on which Parliament in due course will have to take its decision. It is not very suitable to put it before a Royal Commission.

Mr. Hale: Does the Prime Minister realise that that begs the whole case for abolition which has already been carried by this House on a free vote, and that if a Commission is appointed to express an opinion whether it should be limited or modified, the report of that Commission will be read as a report against abolition; and may I implore the Prime Minister to reconsider these terms of reference and to make it abundantly apparent that the Commission is to have a free vote?

The Prime Minister: I am quite sure that is not so. I have made it abundantly clear, as I stated, that it is for Parliament to decide on that issue. I am quite sure that if we put up a Royal Commission with terms of reference to consider abolition, we should merely get majority and minority reports, and I think it is much more useful to set up a Commission with these terms of reference.

Mrs. Mann: Can the Prime Minister say how many women will take part?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot.

Mr. Driberg: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it will be within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission to consider modification or revision of the McNaghten Rules, in the light of modern knowledge?

The Prime Minister: I could not say off-hand whether that subject will come up. Broadly speaking, it deals with modifications, but it will be for the Royal Commission to consider in what way it should take that into account.

WALES (COUNCIL)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Lord President of the Council whether it is his intention to arrange for any of the meetings of the new Council for Wales to be held in public; whether the Council will have power to co-opt additional members; and whether the Council will be able to decide when and where it will meet.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): As I told the House on the 24th November, the intention is that the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire shall meet in private. It is not proposed that it shall have co-opting powers, but it will, of course, be free to decide when and where it will meet.

Mr. Freeman: May I ask the Lord President whether he would give permission to the Council so that it could decide itself whether it should meet in public or in private, in view of the desire of many people to have the opportunity of speaking in public?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that is desirable as a general practice. There might conceivably be exceptional occasions when there could be public sittings, but I think that if there were very full discussions we should have the Council in danger of being in a little competition with Welsh Members of Parliament in Parliament assembled.

Mr. Freeman: Will my right hon. Friend consider leaving it to the Council itself to decide if it wishes to meet in public?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Price-White: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons

for the considerable opposition to the proposed Council for Wales, even amongst local authorities, is that it should meet in private, and will he reconsider the point if he wishes the Council to be a success at all?

Mr. Morrison: There are various reasons for such criticisms of the proposal as exist, and a number of these reasons for criticism cancel themselves out, like this one does. Many people are apprehensive about the Council in case it should become, in certain respects, a rival of the House of Commons.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Is the Lord President also aware that, amongst local authorities which expressed approval of this proposal, disapproval was expressed of the provision that it should meet in private?

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Foreign Worker (Direction)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour why Josef Rokoczy, a qualified dentist, was directed to agricultural work and prosecuted for refusal.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): This man came to this country as a European Volunteer Worker, having signed the usual undertaking to accept the work selected for him. He repeatedly refused agricultural work, and, indeed, said that he intended to emigrate to the Argentine and had no intention of doing any work in this country in the meantime. The prosecution which followed was instituted by the police on the ground that he had contravened the conditions on which he had been allowed to land in this country.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not a fact that this man was quite willing to follow his profession, if he was giver a chance to do so? Why was he not given that opportunity?

Mr. Isaacs: In the first place, he signed up to come here as a volunteer to take such work as was offered to him; secondly, we have no evidence that he is a dentist; thirdly, he made no application to the authorities to be accepted as a dentist, and we do not know if they will accept him if he does make application; and finally, he has been living in England, sitting in idleness, while school children have been doing agricultural work.

Mr. Stanley: In view of the interest aroused in this case, will not the right hon. Gentleman try him out as a dentist?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir, if the right hon. Gentleman will accept the trial.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the intention of successive Governments of this country to allow refugees to come here after being persecuted abroad, has now been departed from by this Government?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is not quite right to put that interpretation upon it. We posted notices in displaced persons' camps on the Continent asking if anybody was ready to volunteer to come here to work. Only those who said they were prepared to accept agricultural or such other work as was offered to them were brought here. This man volunteered to come here to work; he did not come here as a refugee.

Mr. Hale: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this country has for many years had far too many people in idleness, and that we would rather export than import them?

Control of Engagement Order

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the imminent conversion of the coal industry into a closed shop, he will relax control of labour and engagements sufficiently to ensure that no individual can be compelled to join a trade union.

Mr. Isaacs: The Control of Engagement Order does not operate to compel an individual to join a trade union. The question does not therefore arise.

Sir J. Mellor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the President of the National Union of Mineworkers said on 22nd December that the National Coal Board had agreed to a closed shop, and, in the circumstances, will he give an assurance that in no case will any Labour controls be used in such a way as to require a mineworker to join a union against his wishes?

Mr. Isaacs: The only thing I can say is that it is not the Government's intention to do anything that will break down agreements entered into between employers and workers.

Mr. John McKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an industry in which the trade union representatives are the only people to deal with questions of wages, conditions, pensions, holidays and so forth, any man who is in that industry and accepts all these benefits negotiated by the trade union representatives without being himself a member is in reality very much in the nature of a parasite?

Mr. Frank Byers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has drawn the attention of all local authorities to Article 22 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and whether he will indicate to these authorities that, since the adoption of the Declaration by His Majesty's Government, it is no longer open to them to pursue a closed shop policy or to require their employees to join any Association.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which was given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his Question of 18th January. I assume that he is referring to paragraph 2 of Article 20 of the Declaration, and would point out that, while this Article covers rights of peaceful assembly and association in general, rights in regard to the formation and joining of trade unions are explicitly dealt with in Article 23 (4). No change is contemplated in the Government's policy of entrusting to organisations of employers and workers the responsibility for determining terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. Byers: Does that mean that the Government intend to interpret this Declaration of Human Rights in such a way that they will never have to fulfil it?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir, but it does mean that the Government will read the appropriate paragraph of the Declaration instead of the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

EXPORT TRADE PLANNING (U.S.S.R.)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in order to overcome the difficulties of planning export trade as outlined in paragraph 57 of Command Paper No. 7572 on European Co-operation, he will study, with a


view to implementation, the success of the planned export-import agreements which have recently been signed between the U.S.S.R. and a number of countries in Eastern Europe.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): If the hon. Member will supply my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with accurate figures of the trade passing under the agreements he mentions, he will be glad to study them. Such figures are not published.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that, in the White Paper, the Chancellor can see no possibility of anything in the way of balanced exports and imports, is it not clear that if two or more countries have an intelligently planned economy, part of that intelligently planned economy will be exports and imports mutually exchanged between one another? Does it need any special intelligence to grasp that fact?

MILITARY EXPENDITURE

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the Government's overseas expenditure during 1947, and as estimated for 1948, is accounted for by military expenditure, excluding the cost of occupying ex-enemy territories; and what was the total cost of military expenditure abroad in 1938 and 1921, respectively.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that I am not in a position to add to the statement given in the White Paper on the United Kingdom Balance of Payments (Command 7520) of Government military expenditure overseas in 1947 and the first half of 1948. Comparable figures for 1938 and 1921 are not available.

Mr. Gallacher: Why is it that the Chancellor furnishes in the White Paper the facts in relation to the financial position of the country, and does not make an effort to get these figures and to place them in relation to the amount of money which is being spent in other directions?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the hon. Member will look at the White Paper to which I have referred him, I think he will find most of the figures that he wants are there.

Captain Crookshank: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any comparable figures to those asked for by the hon. Gentleman are available about Russia and her military expenditure?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Not without notice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is in a position to make any statement about the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows

Monday, 24th January—Second Reading of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; and Committee stage of the Wireless Telegraphy [Money] (No. 2) Resolution.

Tuesday, 25th January—Report and Third Reading of the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.

Wednesday, 26th January—Debate on Palestine on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Thursday, 27th January and Friday, 28th January—Second Reading of the American Aid and European Payments (Financial Provisions) Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.

We are advised that the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will be somewhat wide. The House may find it convenient, if you agree, Mr. Speaker, for the Debate to range over the subject matter of the recent White Paper containing the United Kingdom, 1949–50 and long term programmes and the Interim Report of the O.E.E.C. on the European Recovery Programme. If, Sir, that could be arranged with your concurrence, I think it would meet the general convenience of the House.

Mr. Clement Davies: Whilst appreciating that two days are necessary for the Economic Debate on Thursday and Friday, may I ask the Leader of the House if he will consider whether it is possible to extend the time of the sitting of the House on Wednesday—as there are so many hon. Members interested in this matter—in case the ordinary sitting does not prove quite long enough for a full Debate?

Mr. Morrison: I will try to ascertain the feelings about that, and I will consider it, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot, on the spur of the moment, give an undertaking. I will take that request into account.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the importance of this two-day Debate, may I ask the Government whether they will take steps to provide further copies of a book with a blue cover which was issued in Paris and in which was a printed slip? To avoid expense it was issued as a White Paper. Are the Government aware that we cannot get copies in the office, and that that book covers the whole of the European Recovery Plan issued not by the Government, but by the O.E.E.C.?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that a copy has been supplied to every Member of the House, including the hon. Gentleman—he may have mislaid it among his numerous documents of one sort or another—but, in view of what he says, I will see whether anything can be done to meet any possible losses of the copies that have been distributed.

Professor Savory: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he proposes to give the House an opportunity of discussing the situation which has arisen by the passing of the Republic of Ireland Act and the unilateral repudiation of the Agreement of 1921 registered by the Free State as a Treaty at Geneva?

Mr. Morrison: Well, Sir, I think I had better think about that before I say anything.

Professor Savory: Surely, the matter is urgent?

Mr. Austin: Regarding the subject for Debate next Wednesday, may we take it that, on this occasion, the Foreign Secretary and not the Secretary of State for Air will be present; and, secondly, in view of my right hon. Friend's repeated refusal to suspend the Rule at the request of hon. Members, may I add my small voice to the request made by the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) that the Rule be suspended in view of the enormous interest take in this Debate?

Mr. Morrison: On the last point, I have already answered the right hon. and

learned Gentleman. On the first point, quite obviously my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be here, and, if I may say so, I do not think it is necessary for my hon. Friend to make a suggestion to the effect that the Foreign Secretary is afraid to face the music.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the Debate on Palestine, is it not the case that it is not so much what is said now as what is done, and will not the right hon. Gentleman seriously consider between now and Wednesday making a statement recognising the Government of Israel, which would settle the whole trouble?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman says it is not so much what is said as what is done. That is a first-class doctrine, and I recommend him to apply it.

Mr. Nally: As I understand it, it is likely that some time during the next few days we shall have made available to us the findings of the Tribunal over which Mr. Justice Lynskey presided. I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend would agree that it would be to the convenience of the House if he could give us some guidance as to the length of time which the Government propose to allot to the discussion of these findings? It seems to me that in view of the importance of it, and the number of hon. Members who will desire to speak, we ought to be given some indication of the length of time the Government consider appropriate.

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid my hon. Friend puts a difficult point to me. The fact is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not yet received the report of the Tribunal. As he has not received it and nobody else has seen it, it is a little premature to consider what comes out of it. I think it would be wiser for my hon. Friend to put that question when the report has been made available and people have had some opportunity of reading it.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (MINISTER'S STATEMENT)

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): On 18th December, under the headline of "Big New Fraud Enquiries" "More Sensational than the Tribunal," the "Daily Graphic" referred to a new


large-scale investigation by Scotland Yard's fraud squad in which Government Departments were said to be involved and officials of the Ministry of Health were said to have been already interviewed. I should like to state categorically that, so far as my Department is concerned—and this has been verified with Scotland Yard itself—there is no vestige of foundation for the imputation so clearly conveyed in this irresponsible allegation. All newspapers were immediately so informed.
On 20th December, the Secretary of my Department after investigation wrote to the editor of the paper and asked for an immediate correction of the statement and an apology. The assistant editor replied, in the editor's absence, and promised a reply within a day or so. No further reply was received, and on 5th January another letter was sent to the editor. An acknowledgment said that inquiries were being made, and promised a reply at the earliest opportunity. The Secretary of my Department wrote again on 10th January, saying that he would imagine that the inquiries would have been made before the statement was published, and therefore again asking for an early answer.
On 13th January, he was informed that steps had been taken to verify the reliability of the sources from which the information was obtained, and that the investigations showed no reason why the statements published should be corrected. It will be seen that no evidence of any kind has been vouchsafed and no justification of the statements attempted, and, so far as the "Daily Graphic" is concerned, my officials are left under the stigma of imputations which I again assert are baseless.

Mr. Churchill: It is quite clear from the statement which the Minister has volunteered that the onus in this matter lies very directly upon the newspaper concerned.

Mr. Bevan: It will be clear that in the last answer sent by the editor of this paper he does not say that the information obtained was correct. He merely says that the sources were verifiable and reliable, so that he once more dodges the necessity of providing the evidence

upon which the statement was based. I think it is quite intolerable that the officials of a great Department should rest for one whole month under a stigma that the editor of a newspaper is too cowardly to confirm.

Mr. Driberg: Although I believe that the Royal Commission on the Press has now ceased taking evidence, it has not yet reported. Would my right hon. Friend consider forwarding to the Royal Commission details of this case to which he has drawn the attention of the House—this most irresponsible example of yellow journalism by one of the most vicious anti-Government newspapers?

Mr. Bevan: Certainly, I will consider sending this information to the Press Commission. I have always been of the view that the daily conduct of the newspapers in some respects has provided all the raw material that the Commission required.

Mr. Leslie Hale: In view of the fact that it is abundantly apparent that the editor is sheltering from apologising for this scurrilous attack which was published as a headline on their front page, behind a defective law of libel, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of calling the attention of those who are considering the amendment of the law of libel to this matter with a view to making it actionable to libel a public authority.

Mr. Bevan: I am quite sure they will be made very well aware of the facts of this case.

Mr. Speaker: Personal statements ought not to lead to irregular Debates. A statement has been made and should not be allowed to lead on to making all kinds of various charges and suggestions which I can assure the House are not really proper to our procedure. The Department has made its defence; the Minister has made a defence of his Department; and now, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the onus is on the other side.

Mr. Hale: On a point of Order. Is it not well within the rights, privileges and responsibilities of this House to point the moral in a case like this where opportunity has been given to a newspaper of taking the proper course, where that proper course has been refused and where


a gross imputation has been made not only upon the Ministry of Health, but indirectly on the public administration of this country?

Mr. Speaker: Personally, I think the dignified course now is to leave the matter where it is and let public opinion judge.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I have permission to ask a specific question? Is it not the case that the proprietor of this newspaper stated before the Royal Commission that it was the practice of his newspapers, the Kemsley newspapers——

Mr. Speaker: There was a question before which I allowed, actually by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) and also by the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert) which made some comments on a Royal Commission which is now sitting. We may not comment on what is happening before a Royal Commission. If the hon. Member for Devonport is going to comment on something which is done before a Royal Commission which is now sitting and which is still sub judice, that is a matter which is out of Order and I ought not to allow it.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of Order. Am I to understand from your Ruling, Sir, that the Chair is assuming a new duty in expressing an ex parte view that Questions may or may not be dignified? May I venture, with the utmost respect to you, Sir, to submit that if the Chair is assuming that responsibility it would be assuming a responsibility which has not been entrusted before by this House in surrendering its privileges to the Chair.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting I was expressing an ex parte view. I hope I was expressing the honest and proper view of the House of Commons. I will leave it at that.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. You said the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport; I presume you meant the hon. Member for Devonport.

Mr. Speaker: It was the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport. I remember the incident quite well. If he will ask me I will show it to him later.

BILL PRESENTED

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Mr. Speaker: "to make further provision with respect to the powers of the Board of Trade to give guarantees in connection with overseas transactions; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." presented by Mr. H. Wilson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bottomley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Proceedings in Committee on Minister of Food (Financial Powers) [Money] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SOLICITORS, PUBLIC NOTARIES, ETC., BILL

3.46 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very dull Bill. I must confess that when I myself read it for the first time it was once more borne in upon me that it is not given to the Law Officers
the applause of listening senates to command.
I sometimes wished after I had read this Bill, that somebody sometime would entrust to the Law Officers one of those more exciting and contentious Bills like another I see on the Order Paper today, the Water (Scotland) Bill, on which my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and I could really let ourselves go.
I am afraid this is not such an occasion. This is one of those modest, non-controversial little Bills so fitting to the character of Law Officers, which from time to time are entrusted to us. It is indeed a very little Bill. It does very little and it does it, I hope, very quickly indeed. It pretends to accomplish no great reform in our legal administration, but it cuts away just a little of the dead wood which surrounds far too much the living tree of our Statute law. Its main proposal, although there are some subsidiary points in the Bill, is to abolish the Stamp Duty, already almost negligible, which is paid on practising certificates taken out by solicitors.
Those who pursue the great and honourable calling of a solicitor have to take out each year a practising certificate. That certificate could be refused by those who have it in power to grant it where the solicitor concerned has been guilty of some disciplinary offence or, I think, where during the course of the past year—and this is a risk to which members of my profession are especially exposed—he has been made bankrupt or driven mad. We do not propose to abolish the necessity for solicitors to obtain practising certificates in that way, but what we recommend to the House in this Bill is that they should no longer be required to pay Stamp Duty on those certificates.
The position in regard to that is that a long time ago—I think in the 18th century—a Stamp Duty, which amounted to £9 a year in the case of solicitors practising in the London and Edinburgh areas and £6 a year elsewhere, had to be paid on the taking out of the certificate. In 1941 an additional burden of a different kind was imposed upon solicitors, and it was one peculiar to that profession. They were required to make an annual contribution to a compensation fund from which grants could be made to persons who might have suffered loss through some malpractice on the part of a solicitor; and, in addition, they were required to employ at their own expense accountants who would certify each year the accounts of their practices. In 1947 it occurred to the legislature to make some quid pro quo for that additional burden by reducing the Stamp Duty on taking out the certificate.
It would, no doubt, have been abolished at that time but for technical and procedural difficulties which would have resulted in the necessity for amending other Statutes, and which apparently would have had the effect of converting the Finance Bill into a non-money Bill, which would have produced constitutional consequences which were not thought at that time by the Chancellor to be justified by the importance of the innovation. What was done in 1947 was to reduce the duty, already quite small, to a twentieth of what it previously had been. It is now a duty which is quite insignificant so far as its value to the Revenue is concerned, and is, I suppose, merely tiresome and annoying to those who each year are called upon to pay it. What we propose in this Bill is to abolish it altogether. Practising certificates will still be required, but no duty will be paid upon them.
We also propose to take the opportunity provided by this Bill of repealing a number of Statutes or statutory provisions which have long since fallen into desuetude with regard to those whose practice in the law has been distinguished by some form of specialised title. Some of those titles are themselves ancient and absolete, and I must confess that I had to look into the books to see what they were all about. The first one is the title of "Conveyancer." That title has been applied in


the past by Statute to persons who, being neither barristers nor solicitors, employed themselves only in the preparation of deeds. That has ceased to exist as a separate profession. Conveyancing is, of course, normally done now by solicitors or by barristers, and they will continue to do it, and there is no reason now for any statutory privilege to be given to those who, in years gone past, were entitled to practise as conveyancers without being barristers or solicitors.
Then there are the "special pleaders." The term "special pleader" will still be available as a term of abuse which Members on one side of the House can direct against Members on the other side of the House—with justification, of course, only from this side of the House; but it ceases to have a statutory or legal significance. It used to be used in respect of those who devoted themselves in the main to the drafting of pleadings in Common Law matters and to appearing, not in open court and as advocates, but in precedural matters before judges in chambers.
That phrase will go, along with that special phrase "Draftsmen in Equity." Where the barrister concerned was dealing with Chancery matters, he was called, not a "special pleader," but a "Draftsman in Equity." Barristers will still be entitled, if they so desire, to call themselves by those names if they want to indicate the special kind of work they are holding themselves out to do, but they will have no special statutory privileges beyond those which are accorded under the law to barristers as such.
Finally, we propose in this Bill—and this is a matter to which it may be necessary to give a little consideration on Committee stage—to abolish the necessity for notaries public to take out special practising certificates as such. The office of a notary public is a very ancient one. They were the original scribes of the Roman law, and they are appointed even today under a Statute of Henry VIII by the Court of Faculties, which is presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Previously they were appointed by the Pope.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: What are they?

The Attorney-General: That is what I wanted to know, and so I looked it up in the dictionary, and I found that they

were officers who took note of anything which might concern the public. One would have thought from that that at present they must be very busy people, but that was, indeed, an inadequate description of them. They have other functions, and important ones, which are in rather more specialised directions than that.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Is there really any reason for their existence at all? I must declare a financial interest in this, for I am a commissioner for oaths. Could not the work be done by commissioners for oaths? My point is, that this is virtually a hereditary profession. It is not passed on from father to son, but from solicitor to articled clerk.

The Attorney-General: It would be out of Order for me on this Bill to deal with that aspect of the matter, because in this Bill it is not proposed to abolish the office. I would hesitate to say that it was not a useful office. Out of 523 of these gentlemen 500 are solicitors, and it is generally an office which is performed—and I think that it is increasingly the case—by practising solicitors, but it is a little specialised. Their task, as I understand, is not merely to attest documents, as commissioners for oaths may do, but actually to prepare deeds and other legal and commercial documents with a view to their being used in foreign places and conforming to the foreign law, when these involve qualifications which are quite specialised, and in some cases, as I am instructed, very high qualifications indeed.
Then, in addition, some of them are required to translate legal documents into the languages of foreign law or from those languages into the language of our own law. Then they prepare all sorts of mercantile documents. The only one that I remember by name is a "Bottomry Bond." They also deal with the preparation of ships' protests. I think that they do discharge an important function in the mercantile and commercial life of the country. It is skilled work, and high qualifications, whether general, or those of a solicitor, appear to be required for it. In modern times, I am told, they no longer carry the badge of office which, in the Middle Ages, they used to have, which was an ink horn and pen case suspended by a silken cord


from their girdles. That was the badge of office which led Cave to say of them what, I gather, the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) would wish to say of them, "'Away with him, I say. Hang him with his pen and ink-horn about his neck'."

Mr. Hale: Was that not said of all lawyers?

The Attorney-General: That was, in fact, about a notary who had this badge of office with which he might be hanged at once. We do not want to hang them. We do not think there is any necessity for taking that step in regard to them. We want to save them—and this appears reasonable, though I think we shall have to look at it in Committee, perhaps—we want to save them from the necessity of taking out a separate practising certificate, bearing in mind that the very great and increasing majority already take out practising certificates as solicitors. But the effect of the Bill—I hope that it will not unduly disappoint the hon. Member for Oldham—is that we shall still be able to say, as was said to the Merchant of Venice,
Go with me to a notary; seal me there Your single bond.
I hope that the competition notaries will provide in that respect will not seriously injure the commissioners for oaths.

4.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I must apologise to the House for the unfortunate absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) who cannot be here as early as this, and, therefore, not being an expert in this matter, I would merely say that we on these Benches welcome the Bill because it seems, although the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is very dull, to effect a useful purpose. After all, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is rather complaining that he had a dull job to do, must remember that life is a question of ups and downs, and laughter and tears follow one another. I understand from the public Press that he had anything but a dull time just before Christmas, so perhaps this is the penalty for that slight change in his functions.
This Bill really follows from the Finance Bill, when we discussed the

matter at some length, and I think that, at that time, it was the universal view of the House that this was one of those tiresome little payments which had very good reasons historically, but which it is no longer necessary to exact in these days. The amount of money lost to the Treasury in consequence was negligible, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out, owing to purely technical reasons in this House, it could not then be entirely abolished. All that the Bill purports to do is to complete the process which we started last year. As the House has already given its approval, so to speak, in principle that these charges should disappear, it seems only right that we should now carry the matter to its logical conclusion.
With regard to the future of notaries public, I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his research, and for the charming way in which he described their past and present functions. It is just as well, I think—and I believe he agrees with me—that unless there is an overwhelming reason for abolishing some historic office or tradition we should let it remain. It does no harm. It is quite true that they do not perform the same function as they did five hundred years ago, but, then, neither do we in this House, nor do lots of other people. It would be a pity to sweep them away, and I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that there is some value in keeping these ancient offices. I am glad, therefore, that the Bill does not in fact do away with them.
The main purpose of the Bill is to do away with this minor expenditure, although it has not always been minor. In the past it must have been very tiresome, especially for the younger members of the profession, but now, as a result of last year's Act, it is such a minute sum that it might just as well be swept away. Therefore, I can on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend, who knows far more about this matter than I can possibly know, welcome this Bill and hope that it will have a speedy passage.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I personally am sorry that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is not here because he is one who has consistently advocated this provision, and


the provision in the Budget, which came at the same time, and which is a much more important one. I cannot completely accept the invitation of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to agree with him. I do not know whether the learned Attorney-General enjoyed his pre-Christmas studies of the working of private enterprise, but I think that he ought to regard the few minutes speech which he has made this afternoon as a matter for far greater pride than he expressed.
This is a fundamental and important point of principle in Labour Party policy. The present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when Chancellor of the Exchequer did abolish in the Budget, the very heavy and almost prohibitive stamp duty imposed on the articles of solicitors. That duty was £80, and no one who could not put up £80 had any hope of becoming a solicitor. That was an absolute bar, and a money bar which kept the profession completely closed to the overwhelming majority of the members of the working class and the poorer class.
The result now—and I want to emphasise this—is that there is virtually no money bar which stands in the way of entering my particular branch of the legal profession. Premiums can still be asked for, but I hope that this action will tend to abolish the whole business of requiring premiums in order to enter an occupation or profession. Although premiums can still be asked for, I think it is fair to members of my profession to say that they rarely are asked for in these days. A great number of people are quite willing to accept articled clerks without asking for a premium. If these two steps are taken, it will make the profession reasonably accessible to anyone wishing to enter it. There are a good many reasons why people would not wish to enter it, but I will not go into them now.
May I say a word or two about another matter of importance? I have no particular desire to abolish historical occupations or to reduce the number of ancient dignitaries but, as I understand it, the position of a notary public is a very special one. One becomes a notary public by two means. By chance one may happen to be articled to a notary public, in which case the ordinary process of becoming a solicitor substantially

entitles one also to become a notary public. Whatever one's capacity one finds one's self, willy-nilly, a notary public if one is articled to a notary public. He may be a partner of half a dozen people who are not, but that does not matter. If one picks him in the lottery of life one becomes a notary public whether one wishes it or not.
By that means without any linguistic test or academic test or any test of knowledge of ancient history, and even without being asked to draw a bottomry bond at all, one can become a notary public. That is not, in my view, the way in which anyone should qualify for any profession. I suggest that in the Committee stage of this Bill we might discuss this point with the proper professional authorities to see whether the proper professional functions of a notary public which in fact——

The Attorney-General: I should perhaps have told the House that this Bill has been very fully discussed with the professional authorities—the Bar Council and the Law Society—and I am informed that both approved of its contents. I should not like the hon. Member to think that that had not been done, or to think that by the way I introduced the Bill to the House, I did not attach much importance to it. What appeared to me to be the point was that the real principle—and I agree the most important principle—about the Stamp Duty had been accepted and adopted by the House last year, and that this was merely the technical implementation of a principle which had in fact already become part of our life.

Mr. Hale: I suggest that the probable explanation of why the Law Society have not made this suggestion to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that in their collective wisdom they never thought of it. I should, therefore, be glad it my observations were called to their attention for their reflection and consideration, and I hope that as a result, representations may be made to him to enable him to reconsider the matter in the course of the Committee stage. I thank him for the Bill.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: The Attorney-General is always fathering infants in this House and telling us that


he is introducing a tiny little Bill. I do not think that this is at all a little Bill for the simple reason that it shows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is willing to give up some of the money which he is taking from the oppressed classes of this country. For that reason I think that it is a very significant Bill. I desire to ask the Attorney-General a question to which he cannot possibly give me a full answer. Perhaps, however, if I put it to him he might be able to give us a very small answer, in keeping with his usual practice. Will he undertake on behalf of the Government to say that it is the intention not only to deal with solicitors, on whom this injustice has so long been prolonged, but to extend this principle to others of the professional classes who are having a very desperate time? I ask the Attorney-General whether he will reply to the question, even if he cannot do so with a clear conscience.

The Attorney-General: I hesitate to answer that question because I have not all the information before me, but I do not think journalists pay any Stamp Duty, nor do dramatic critics.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I, in common with all other hon. Members, welcome this Bill which, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is merely carrying out the policy enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a previous Budget. I rise only for the purpose of saying a word or two about the subject of notaries public. I am not sure that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) really appreciated the point. I do not think any of us want to see the abolition of what is an historic office, not only of some importance in this country but also of some international importance. For myself, I should prefer to see a considerable extension of the number of notaries public. The point is that the office of notary public, one of great antiquity, is an office of international recognition; there are notaries public throughout the world. It so happens that there are many more notaries public in countries like America, and in some of the Continental countries of Europe, than there are in England.
As a matter of international custom, there are certain documents which. When

required for use in foreign countries, have to be witnessed before a notary public. From time to time I come across documents which have to be witnessed in England before a notary public because they are required for production in some foreign country. In this country the office of notary public has become very exclusive, and the number of notaries public is very limited; whereas in the United States of America one finds, not exactly that notaries public grow on trees, but that in nearly every legal office not merely the qualified members of the firm—be they barristers or solicitors—but also almost every clerk in the office is a notary public in the sense that he is qualified to witness documents required outside the United States of America. I do not think it has ever been suggested that that extension of the qualification of notary public has been any debasement of the office.
In this country the number of notaries public has become, by some accident—perhaps because it has been the preserve of certain families and has descended from generation to generation—extremely limited. Outside London it is often difficult for people who have to sign a document required abroad to find a notary public. If documents could be regarded as international currency if witnessed before a solicitor or commissioner for oaths, it would be a simple matter. The point therefore arises, not necessarily on this Bill but on the next occasion when this matter is being inquired into, whether it might not be convenient for the inhabitants of this country—not only the commercial community but all who are concerned with international relations—that some consideration should be given to the modernisation of the old practice which required these documents to be witnessed before a notary public. I hope it might be possible by some simple machinery to extend the office of notary public, either to all solicitors or to all commissioners for oaths, in order that when these occasions arise there may not be, as there sometimes is at present, difficulty in complying with the requirements of foreign law.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill, which is another small Bill, is to meet a point made by the Public Accounts Committee in their Third Report of the Session 1946–47. The Public Accounts Committee expressed doubts as to the powers of the Ministry of Food to enter into commitments beyond the end of December, 1950. The significance of that date is that it is the date on which the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act expires. The issue was whether a commitment involving a financial commitment beyond that date was covered by the powers of the Ministry as they are today. This Bill seeks to put that beyond doubt by providing that money which will have to be used to pay for foodstuffs, for example, or any other suitable commodity brought into the country under a commitment extending beyond that date, shall be provided by this House.
The issue was really first considered in 1932 when the House decided, after some discussion I understand, that a Department exercising continuing functions which extended beyond the current year—functions which involved financial commitment—needed specific statutory cover. The Public Accounts Committee agreed that that decision, as it were, that understanding, was suspended, as I have said before, for the currency of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. But in respect of a commitment which extended beyond that it might not be covered, and it was therefore held by the Government that it would be only right and proper to bring in this short Measure to put the point beyond doubt. So much for the formal side of the Bill.
The only other thing I wish to do in commending the Bill to the House is to add a word or two on the non-formal issue, the issue of substance that these contracts run for a term of years—longterm contracts as they are sometimes called, though their length varies a good deal. We have entered into a good number of contracts, and as this Bill provides an opportunity to do that I think a word

of justification on the substantial score of the principle of the contracts is needed.
There are in existence today some 40 of these contracts of varying terminal dates; they vary from one up to 10 years. Their provisions also are very various. Many of them contain annual price reviews; others price variations within a given amount, say 7½ per cent. upwards or downwards in each year; some of them are for fixed quantities of produce; some are for the exportable surplus of the country with whom the contract is made and others for a fixed proportion of the exportable surplus, say 95 per cent., or something of that sort. However, varying as the actual terms of these contracts are, they can all be covered by certain general principles, and if I am asked what are the objects we seek to serve in making these contracts I should say they are mainly two.
In present conditions, the first object of these long or medium-term contracts is to increase the world production of foodstuffs. How do we seek to do that? We believe that these instruments do play today quite an indispensable and vital part in securing the increase which is needed in world food production by giving the primary producers a reasonable measure of security. We believe that that is profoundly necessary because of the particularly bitter experience of the primary producers, for example, in the British Commonwealth and all over the world for that matter, in the period between the wars, when the only effect of increasing their production was in many cases their own financial ruin. We do not believe that we shall get the primary producers of the world to increase their production unless we give them some reasonable measure of security.
The second purpose is almost equally important, and it is combined with the avoidance of what I would call the astronomical food prices today. We believe that it can be quite definitely shown that these contracts have prevented, and still do prevent, this country having to pay prices for its essential food imports which, in many cases over the past three years, it would have been quite ruinous to pay. In proof of that we would point to the rise in prices of foodstuffs which have not been covered by these contracts, and in many cases the prices


which have been paid by other producers for food which we have secured under these contracts.
Therefore, when we bring those two prices together, the aim and object of the contracts, or their pattern as it were, is always the same. It is the nature of the bargain entered into between producer and consumer and buyer and seller, with the seller getting a degree of security he would not get from a day-to-day transaction on the market, and the purchaser paying a lower price than he would by buying day to day on the market. We believe that is a reasonable bargain adjusted as I say, in very many different variations, but the fact of that bargain being struck in no fewer than 40 instances today is a profoundly satisfactory one to both parties in the present state of the world.
There is no doubt that the producer, if he is willing, as some producers have been, to forgo this element of security, can in some cases get a higher price if he does not mind the risk in a year or so when the price may come down to a ruinous extent He can charge whatever the traffic will bear today, but we have suggested, and with great success, to all these producers that that is really not in their interests as it is not in ours. It is not in our interests to pay the very high prices that the traffic will bear for two reasons—for the obvious one that we cannot afford it above all where dollars are concerned, and the more controversial reason, that the price the traffic would bear—the natural price at which a commodity would be sold today—in the present condition of supply and demand would not be the best price to induce the maximum production. If I turn for a moment from the language of the trader, the catchword which I have used "above the price that the traffic would bear" would in economic terminology be called the short-term equilibrium price—the price which would be reached by the present state of supply and demand with supply inelastic on the short term.
I for one was greatly struck and encouraged by a recent statement from a high economic authority on what would be the likely effect of holding the price below that short-term equilibrium price and nearer at any rate to what we imagine the long-term equilibrium price, based on

the real costs of production today. That in the opinion of important economic authorities, theoretically at any rate, is a sound thing to do, just as it must seem a sound practical thing to do. I am referring to the remarks made on this subject of the success of long-term contracts by Sir Hubert Henderson in his address to the British Association last summer. The passage I have in mind is:
If it is a case of a large excess of demand over supply, the short-term equilibrium price may be very high indeed, much higher than is useful in stimulating additional production. For an exorbitant price does not stimulate production appreciably more than a good price; it frequently stimulates it less. Indeed it is a well-established paradox that an excessive price sometimes leads to a decline in output, because many classes of producers are disposed to work less hard when an accustomed income can be earned with less exertion. On the other hand, the disadvantages of an exorbitant price, or in more popular language, a profiteering price, may he very great.
That seems to me a theoretical justification of the long-term contract between a reasonable producer and a reasonable consumer, by which the price is held somewhere between a short and a long-term equilibrium price.
No one can doubt that we have been and are still in a world situation with very great maladjustment between supply and demand, and it has been wise, wherever we can, to make a long-term contract which is holding the price between those two points. The long-term contract is not the only way of doing it, but it is the most useful and potent instrument for effecting that purpose. I was interested to note that, the British Government is not alone in taking this view and setting a value on these arrangements. I was very struck by a passage in the recent interim report of O.E.E.C. on the general European Recovery Programme, which was recently made to E.C.A. I will read a few words of that report to the House if I may:
One factor limiting agricultural output is the memory of the economic uncertainty and the instability of agricultural markets in the pre-war period. The assurance of stable market may be a powerful influence not only in encouraging production, but also in directing it in accordance with the needs of the consuming public and of the economic situation. On the international aspect, as far as supplies in international trade are concerned, bilateral negotiations afford the most effective present method of implementing a policy of guaranteed markets; in return for its guarantee of a market the purchasing country should have


some assurance that supplies would be forthcoming to the extent required. The United Kingdom has already indicated that it is prepared to consider further contracts with participating countries for essential foodstuffs and it is expected that other countries will be prepared to enter into similar agreements. Guaranteed markets are of particular value in stimulating production and exports from overseas territories.
In that useful and authoritative report we see that these instruments are recognised as thoroughly valuable in the present world situation.
Two criticisms have recently been made of them. I do not attach much importance to the first but the second is more weighty. The first is that a large number of private individual importers competing with each other could today import the supplies more cheaply. That seems to me a most inherently improbable statement. It might be different in a different situation but in one in which supply is markedly less than demand it can hardly be that a number of competing buyers will bid down the price. I will quote Sir Hubert Henderson on that. He writes:
It is not monopoly but competition which forces up prices most in conditions of shortage.
That must surely be obvious. When to a natural shortage of supplies is added the fact that in many cases the producers have unified their selling arrangements and competing private buyers face a united front of sellers, I tremble to think of the prices they may be forced to pay. In facing such a selling organisation as that of the Argentine, a multitude of unassisted buyers would not stand much chance.

Mr. Beverley Baxter: Is not the right hon. Gentleman misleading the House a little? He is assuming that these competitive buyers all advance at the same time on the one country producer. Undoubtedly the competitors would then send the price up, but competitors who are able to buy in different parts of the world will surely bring down the price?

Mr. Strachey: I cannot follow the hon. Member. If we had buyers competing against each other for our meat, they would certainly have to go to the Argentine, perhaps not for all of it but at any rate for that portion of it which we buy from the Argentine. I cannot see how they could avoid tending to bid the

price up against each other. I call in aid there our experience with the European buyers who go to the Argentine and bid the price up against each other most severely to levels far in excess of those by no means low levels which we pay.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Would the right hon. Gentleman apply the same arguments to wheat? In that case, before the war buyers all over the world visited countries wherever a harvest was being gathered and picked up small parcels of wheat here, there and everywhere, so reducing the price, instead of having one or two large sources of supply only as at present.

Mr. Strachey: It is a question of the equilibrium between demand and supply. The hon. Member will no doubt recall the words of Sir Hubert Henderson:
It is not monopoly but competition which forces up prices most in conditions of shortage.
In a condition of shortage, a multiplicity of buyers, whichever market they frequent, tends to force up the price, but the geographical point of the market to which they go would have very little to do with that.

Mr. Baxter: Would the right hon. Gentleman say to the House that there are no foodstuffs in the world today which private purchasers could not buy at a lower price at the present moment than the Government pay by bulk contract?

Mr. Strachey: That would be a sweeping assurance. I should very much like the hon. Member to name one. There are certain commodities which it is much more suitable to leave to purchase by private firms. We leave many to purchase by private firms. The most recent example is that of lemons which we have turned over entirely to purchase by private firms. We do so in such cases where the commodity is a small one or is not suitable to bulk purchase in any case or in which the supply and demand situation has changed and competition between a multiplicity of buyers is much less dangerous. However, I cannot for a moment believe that in the present world situation of supply and demand a multiplicity of buyers would not tend to bid up the price. That seems to me to be the most elementary economics, and that is all I will say at this point, but I would


qualify all this by saying that in the long-term arrangements or the comparatively long-term arrangements with which this Bill deals, the making of such contracts is not necessarily imcompatible with using private buyers in various ways, and that is in fact done.
Cereals have been mentioned. Cereals are bought by private firms acting as the agents of the Ministry of Food or the Government. Sugar is another commodity bought in that way. There are degrees of freedom, as it were, which the private buyer may have under overriding governmental arrangements ranging from the arrangements with which the Government themselves actually buy on its own account to the use of private firms simply as agents, or on the other extreme, to fixing the total, which it may be necessary to fix for currency reasons, within which the private trader can act entirely freely. Therefore, the arrangements with which this Bill is concerned do not necessarily presuppose any actual method of buying. I would mention the point—it does not need elaboration because it is so obvious—that these arrangements are almost indispensable so long as there exists the imperative need to economise in purchases in particular markets. Thus where we have to pay dollars or other scarce or other hard currencies—and it is possible to divert purchases from those markets to softer markets, undoubtedly the long-term contract is a most useful instrument in that very necessary process.
I come now to the second criticism of these contracts, to which I attach great weight. It is said that although there may be a case, and may have been a case for these contracts over the last three years—if I had time I could make an overwhelming case in terms of pounds, shillings and pence for the savings those contracts have made to the British nation over those three years—yet we have reached the peak of world prices for foodstuffs and other primary products. It is said that there is now a chance of those prices turning downwards and it would be rash to enter into long-term contracts with, it is implied, large fixed prices which might involve us in later years in paying as much above the world market price as we have undoubtedly been paying below the world price up to now.
We must take that point into most serious consideration. I shall make one

or two brief comments on it. First of all, I do not take the view that it would be in the best or long-term interests, of the country to see a catastrophic fall in the prices of world staple foodstuffs and other primary materials. The price of wheat may again fall to 50 cents a bushel as it was before the war, but, attractive as that may sound in our ears today, if such a fall took place quickly and catastrophically I would not agree that it was in the best interests of the country. We imported wheat at 50 cents a bushel in 1938, but along with it we imported a great many million unemployed. Any catastrophic fall in primary producers' prices of that sort would inevitably react most detrimentally on great industrial and exporting countries such as this one.
It is true, of course, that long-term contracts on prices, and national agreements in general tend to prevent those sudden catastrophic falls in primary prices, but I believe that to be in the real and long-term interest of this country. It is precisely to safeguard against such catastrophic falls that we give a quid pro quo to the primary producer in return for his selling to us today below the price which he could get on a free market. On the other hand, a moderate and steady decline in primary producers' prices—above all, food prices—is to the great interest of this country, and it is most important that the long-term arrangements which we enter into today should do nothing to prevent such a steady and moderate fall in the prices of the primary foodstuffs and other primary products which we have to buy.
As the House can imagine, I am exceedingly anxious that no obstacle should be put in the way of such a process as that, and if the House will examine from time to time the contracts and arrangements we enter into, it will be seen that the greatest care is taken that they do not prevent such moderate and reasonable falls as that in world prices. They contain many safeguards. In some there is an annual price review clause but, as in the case of our contracts with Australia and New Zealand with regard to dairy produce, and in the case of New Zealand meat too, which we have just entered into, they contain a clause that the price shall not vary more than a certain percentage each way in any given year.
There are various methods by which we can safeguard, and must safeguard, against the effect of these arrangements being to stabilise the prices which we should pay for our primary products at what might prove in future years to be an unnecessarily high level. The House may rest assured that so long as I, at any rate, hold my present responsibilities, I shall always bear in mind as perhaps the greatest economic danger to which this country could expose itself would be to pin the price of its imports at a high and fixed level, while the prices to be realised by its manufactured exports were left free to find their own level. That, of course, would be a most hazardous thing to do, and one which we shall avoid at all costs.
Having said those words on the underlying substance of the Bill, and having explained to the House the occasion for it, I hope the Bill will be given a Second Reading.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: This Bill deals in its terms with what is a narrow but an important matter. The position of the Ministry of Food in relation to long-term contracts has hitherto been unsatisfactory, and it is vitally important, if any proper Parliamentary control of expenditure is to prevail, that Ministers should only spend money with proper statutory authority for it. Otherwise, any Minister could embark upon any type of expenditure which appealed to him.
It was, of course, three centuries ago that Parliament acquired effective control over taxation, but it is only much more recently that Parliament has sought to achieve effective control over the expenditure of public moneys. The rules of practice in relation to this matter are now fairly well established and defined. The position is that where expenditure is both substantial and recurrent, express statutory authority should define the powers of the Minister to spend public money, and it is only where the expenditure of public money is either non-recurrent or not substantial in amount, that the procedure by way of estimate or supplementary estimate, followed by the ex post facto authorisation of the Appropriation Act should be followed by public Departments. The Public Accounts Committee, since 1932, as the right hon. Gentleman stated, has made it clear that

in its view, where long-term commitments for expenditure continuing over a period of years are entered upon, there should always be statutory authority.
In paragraph 12 of the Public Accounts Committee Report for the 1946–47 Session the matter is stated as follows:
The Public Accounts Committee of 1932 … and the Committee of 1933 … considered cases of expenditure out of Votes of Parliament under the sole authority of Appropriation Acts. They expressed the view that, as a matter of general principle, where it is desired that continuing functions should be exercised by a Government Department, particularly where such functions may involve financial liabilities extending beyond a given financial year, it is proper, subject to certain recognised exceptions, that the powers and duties to be exercised should he defined by specific statute.
We went on to say:
The Treasury undertook to do their best to comply with the wish of the Committees that, when this power has been exercised to authorise continuing grants, opportunity should be taken to insert regularising clauses in any appropriate legislation which may be in contemplation.
The views of the Committee were expressed in that year, in paragraphs 95–97 of their report, on this question of the long-term contracts of the Ministry of Food, and the Treasury—in their minute of January last year upon this matter—after there had been some discussion as to whether or not the Minister of Food had statutory authority under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act of 1946—went on to say:
My Lords"—
that is, my Lords of the Treasury—
readily agree that the established practice referred to in paragraph 12 of the Committee's report requires that the powers of the Ministry of Food to incur expenditure on long-term commitments should be defined by statute at the first convenient opportunity; and as the Committee were informed, the Ministry are now engaged on the preparation of such legislation.
So this Bill, in its narrow aspect, meets the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee and brings the position of the Ministry of Food properly into line with what has now become the established practice so far as Government expenditure and Government commitments on long-term contracts are concerned. It is a good Bill, not only because it validates what the Ministry of Food may do for the future in this connection, but it also validates what has been done in the past. Its single Clause says:


Any sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil any contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of this Act, in or in connection with the exercise of his functions as to food and animal feeding stuffs, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current … shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.
So, in its narrow aspect, this Bill is a good Bill.
We do not regard this as a very suitable occasion upon which to debate the larger issues connected with these long-term contracts, and we shall seek an early opportunity in the future for a discussion upon this subject. We were horrified to see the Press statement issued by the Ministry of Food yesterday in relation to the meat contracts with the Argentine involving a reduction in the meat ration from 1s. to 10d. per week, and I cannot share the somewhat complacent views expressed by the Minister upon these questions of long-term contracts when we get an example such as we saw in yesterday morning's newspapers. As I understand the position, we paid £100 million in advance for the supply of Argentine meat for the current financial year. We gave them a douceur of £10 million not relating to the price of meat at all, and, having paid in advance, we now find to our distress that the contract quantities are not going to be supplied.
When we look back to the Debate which took place on 23rd February last year, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained this agreement to the House, I must say that his forecasts have fallen very far short of fulfilment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion, having explained that we were going to pay this £110 million down, went on to say:
The net result is that we have promised the Argentine to use our best endeavours to facilitate the supply of this list of goods which they urgently require, and we have got from them the guarantee of delivery of the foodstuffs … which we urgently require."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1948; Vol. 447, c. 1684.]
By paying in advance, the right hon. Gentleman apparently thought that we were getting a guarantee of a fulfilment of the contract. Of course, one of the great disadvantages of this system of inter

Governmental long-term contracts is that there is no authority who can enforce the bargain. Where private traders are concerned there is usually some court to which a case can be taken for breach of contract, but in the case of these inter-governmental contracts there is no authority, no court, nobody who can say that this contract ought to be and must be fulfilled. That is one of the outstanding disadvantages of this system of long-term inter-Government contracts.
At the same time, of course, we must recognise that some system of long-term contracts is an indispensable element in any effective policy for colonial development. It is quite clear that, though the contracts may not be for fixed prices over long terms, some form of undertaking to purchase on minimum quantity contracts and at prices subject to annual review must be an indispensable element in the development of the production of various foodstuffs in our own colonies. However, we shall seek an early occasion in the near future when we shall criticise the administration of the right hon. Gentleman and challenge the wisdom of some of these long term contracts which have been entered into. We shall also, of course, have something more to say about the right hon. Gentleman's regular refusal to give any details of the prices at which these contracts are negotiated at the time when they are entered into.
In point of fact, we find that these prices always leak out, usually from the country with whom the bargain has been made, and in the second place we often find that we can in fact deduce the prices at which the right hon. Gentleman has made these contracts by an examination of the Trade and Navigation accounts. We shall have many points of criticism to bring forward on what I think will be a more appropriate occasion, namely a Supply Day. As to the Bill, we welcome it because it regularises the position of the Minister of Food and it meets the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I cannot let this Bill pass in silence. The Minister has referred to world shortages. I would remind him of the principle that to restrict consumption restricts production. The sooner we take off all these restrictions and controls, the bigger will


become the supply. Does the right hon. Gentleman really mean to say that if we gave a free hand to the traders in the Baltic, Mincing Lane, Manchester and Liverpool, they would not get more food at cheaper prices than he is getting under bulk purchasing?
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has said that we shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter in greater detail, but I should like to warn the Minister that if he tries to break the law of supply and demand that law will break him. In the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill it seems to me that we are asked to give carte blanche to a Minister for whom I have very little respect. It says:
It is not possible to estimate the total amount of expenditure involved.
I think it is a very serious step for this House to take to give an almost unlimited amount of public money to a Minister with the dreadful food record that he has got. As an example, there was all his rationing of potatoes last year; there was not a shortage, yet he rushed into buying swedes and turnips.
In case I shall be called to Order for calling a Minister names, I have taken the precaution to look this up in the Oxford Dictionary——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): I must warn the hon. Gentleman that the fact that a word is in the Oxford Dictionary does not necessarily make it parliamentary.

Sir W. Smithers: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have tried to find a suitable name for the Minister. I want to call him a mountebank. The Oxford Dictionary describes a mountebank as follows:
An itinerant quack who from an elevated platform appealed to his audience by means of stories, tricks, juggling, and the like, in which he was often assisted by a professional clown.
I apologise to the right hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, but that is what it says. It ends by calling him "an impudent charlatan."
To give this almost unlimited amount of public money to a Minister Who has had no experience of economics or business is a very grave responsibility for this House to take. I hope that my right

hon. Friends on the Front Bench will take an early opportunity of bringing the Minister to book on the whole of his bulk purchase policy.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been rather provoked into saying a few words by some of the things which the Minister himself has said. When I first saw this Measure I had considerable misgivings, but I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said about it. Personally, I dislike intensely these trading activities of the Ministry of Food and, subject to certain reservations, I dislike the Ministry of Food entering into long-term contracts. I definitely join issue with the right hon. Gentleman as to the advantages accruing to this country from many of the long-term contracts into which he has entered. There is an increasing volume of evidence to the contrary. I entirely agree with the forebodings which he has expressed about the present very high level of the prices of our imports of food. It seems to me that entering into too many of these long-term contracts will do precisely that which he professes to fear. There will be no hope of a substantial reduction in food prices until we return to a system of free commodity markets. However, I appreciate that this is not the occasion on which to debate that very much wider issue. I am prepared to accept this Measure as purely technical, and I hope we shall have a very early opportunity of debating at length what I think has been the disastrous handling of our imports by this Government.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Royle: I had no intention of participating in this Debate, and I shall not take up the time of the House for more than a few moments, but I certainly do not think that the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) ought to be allowed to get away with the statement he made. He used the word "clown." It would not be unfair to say that if there is one hon. Member in this House who is guilty of that kind of conduct it is the hon. Member for Orpington himself. I suggest to him, very respectfully, that some of the statements he has made this afternoon are lovely examples of clowning on his part.
I took a note of what the hon. Member said. He suggested that increased consumption would bring down prices by causing increased production. Is it possible to look at this question in that light, in present world circumstances? I wonder whether the hon. Member has ever heard about the reports of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of U.N.O. I wonder whether he has ever read a speech made in a Debate in another place by Viscount Bruce of Melbourne, who drew attention to the world situation in regard to food. To suggest that if we were able to increase our consumption in Britain that would automatically increase production throughout the world, and thereby bring down prices, seems to me to be an utterly ridiculous proposition.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who spoke from the opposite Benches that this is not an occasion for a Debate upon bulk buying, but I assure him that many of us on this side of the House can put forward very strong arguments for the policy of my right hon. Friend on this matter, and that when the occasion does arise for talking about it, we shall be able to adduce many arguments in its favour. I do not want to say anything more about it now. I feel that much of what the hon. Member for Orpington said was unworthy of a Debate in this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — MINISTER OF FOOD (FINANCIAL POWERS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums required by the Minister of Food to fulfil contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided

by Parliament of any sums required by the said Minister to fulfil any such contracts or arrangements entered into by him, whether before or after the passing of the said Act, as may be specified in the said Act, including contracts or arrangements involving commitments extending beyond the financial year current when the contracts or arrangements were made.—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BROADCASTING, FAR EAST (AGREEMENT)

5.4 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I beg to move,
That the Agreement, dated 7th December, 1948, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be approved.
This Agreement provides for the British Broadcasting Corporation to construct a powerful broadcasting station on a site in Malaya and to send broadcast programmes from it when it is ready. The site of the station is at Tebrau, in the State of Johore.
Since last August, the Corporation has, under a temporary agreement, been sending out programmes from an existing station of lower power in Singapore. This station was previously operated by the Foreign Office. The Agreement now before the House provides for the working of the low power station by the B.B.C. to continue until the new high power station is ready. The new station is expected to cover a much wider area and to make B.B.C. overseas programmes available to millions more listeners in Far Eastern countries than is now possible either by direct broadcasting from this country or by means of the low power station now in use at Singapore.
The establishment of a broadcasting station overseas is a new departure for the B.B.C., although such a development was foreshadowed by the Royal Charter—Command Paper No. 6974—granted as from 1st January, 1947. No change is involved in Government policy towards the B.B.C., and what is in prospect is merely a means of increasing very considerably the effectiveness of reception of B.B.C. overseas programmes in their present form in the Far East.
The objects of the Agreement I am asking the House to approve are to provide for the construction of a permanent


station and to apply to the service to be conducted by the B.B.C. the provisions applicable to the B.B.C. Overseas Services operated from this country. These provisions appear in the B.B.C. Licence and Agreement dated 29th November, 1946—(Comd. Paper No. 6975)—which was approved by the House on 11th December, 1946. The Licence and Agreement related only to stations in the British Isles and it is for this reason that a new Agreement is now necessary.
Hon. Members will perhaps recall that the B.B.C's. Licence and Agreement required the approval of the House. Standing Orders of this House Nos. 71 and 72 provide that all contracts for the purpose of telegraphic communication beyond the seas, extending over a period of years and creating a public charge, must be approved by a resolution of the House. The Agreement now before the House comes within the scope of the same Standing Orders, it being intended that the cost of the undertaking should be charged against the yearly grant-in-aid for the B.B.C. Overseas Services. I therefore ask the House to approve the Motion.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This proposal envisages, I believe for the first time, the operation of broadcasting by the B.B.C. outside the United Kingdom. It is a little unusual, indeed it is almost unique. for us to be able to congratulate His Majesty's Government on what does appear to be a singularly sensible venture. Let us hope that this will be followed up by starting direct telephone communication with Singapore and Malaya. Incredible as it may seem, it is impossible, I believe, at present, for anybody in London to telephone to Singapore or anywhere in Malaya. Undoubtedly we suffer from inadequate broadcasting facilities in the Far East. There is very little relaying of British programmes in Burma, or in other parts of the Far East and in Malaya in particular where at present such relaying would be of very great value.
There are one or two points about the Agreement upon which we should like further information. Obviously, it is the general practice that transmitting stations, and studios and receiving stations should be some distance apart, but it would appear to raise considerable defence difficulties to have the transmitting station 20

miles away on the mainland in the State of Johore and the receiving station and studios on Singapore Island. We are near enough to the difficulties which overwhelmed us in this part of the world during the war to realise the very considerable local defence problems involved. Past actions of His Majesty's Government have not led us to believe that there is very brilliant co-ordination between different parts of the Administration. I hope that the Ministry of Defence was consulted before this particular location was decided upon. An assurance to that effect from the hon. Gentleman would be very welcome.
It is not so much the setting up of a broadcasting station that is of paramount importance or that matters for our future influence in the world, but what is broadcast when the station is set up. I hope that local people, with local knowledge of what the people in the Far East are anxious to hear, will be given the task of devising the programmes and arranging for their transmission; that we shall not have too great an attempt to uplift people quickly or too many educational talks; that we shall remember the problems of reception and the type of people we are trying to reach, and that we shall, in the first stage at any rate, concentrate more on the entertainment side of our broadcasts, never overlooking the fundamental need throughout to try to put the British case, which we believe to be unanswerable, to the peoples of the Far East.
I have taken the trouble to read some of the more recent broadcasts from London to this part of the world. Presumably the proposed new station is to replace this existing service At a time when there is a breakdown of authority in many parts of the Far East it is somewhat odd that recently we should have broadcast about the occasions when British trade unions had been in conflict with the law, or that a few days ago no less than two pages of script should have been broadcast in the Far Eastern programme describing in detail the unofficial London bus strike. That was scarcely a good illustration of how we manage our industrial affairs.

Mr. Randall: But we do not want suppression of news.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Of course not, but where we are picking and choosing things that will give a fair impression of Britain as a country that is gradually recovering


its position in the world, it is a little strange to devote so much time to something which the official unions themselves regarded as an improper strike and which was certainly rather a humiliating incident in our post-war industrial life.
Above all, I hope that we shall make plain our position about Communism and use the machinery of the new broadcasting facilities to make our views known to the very many millions of friends or loyal fellow-subjects in Far Eastern countries. In particular, this broadcasting station will reach the people of Indonesia. We cannot shut our eyes to the realities of the situation there. In another place, these words were uttered:
The action of the Dutch in Indonesia is fundamentally right. I cannot understand the British Government condemning the Dutch action as too severe——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must not go too wide in what he is saying. It seems to me that he is going rather wide now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: With due respect, I was quoting something that I suggest should be broadcast, and I shall explain the implication of my quotation:
I cannot understand the British Government condemning the Dutch action as too severe. Is it not time to ask where the Foreign Office is leading us?
Those are not my words, but those of a recently ennobled Peer Lord Milverton, when talking about Indonesia.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is really going far too wide. I must ask him to confine himself much more to the terms of this Agreement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I conclude by saying it is essential that we should not stand, as the noble Lord said we were now doing, in palsied indecision. We should let the people of the Far East know where we stand.
Following on that quotation I take it that I should be in Order——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is out of Order in quoting from a speech in another place made in this Session. He cannot, therefore, go on doing that.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was going to remind those hon. Members who listen to the Far East broadcasts, of certain recent broadcasts—I think that this will be in

Order—to the peoples for whom the new station will cater. I quoted the remarks of the noble Lord only to indicate the puzzlement and wonder that must be in the minds of the people who listen to our broadcasts. They do not know exactly where we stand on the issue that to them matters more than anything else. On 15th January we broadcast to the Far East that the Trades Union Congress was trying to eradicate Communism, and had declared war on it. That was in the Far Eastern programme, which these new proposals will partially replace. Two days later—three days ago—on 17th January, in the Chinese news bulletin, we broadcast an account from what was called "The Socialist 'New Statesman and Nation's' article, and their eulogistic tributes to the Communist leader in China, Mao Tse-Tung," even quoting in this British broadcast that:
Mao and his party will bring a new spirit of creative energy into Chinese life. The revolution which began in 1911 enters on its second phase in 1949.
Thousands of listeners in the Far East must wonder where we stand on this vital issue, and how we can try to build up Western Union's resistance to Communism and at the same time undermine Western European States' resistance to Communism in the Far East.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Would the hon. Gentleman go one step further and give us a list of the papers which he suggests should be, and those which he suggests should not be, quoted in disseminating news?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. If we are to use this broadcasting service properly and give the Government the power, particularly that in Clause 4 (2), for which it is asking to control programmes and policies, we ought to try to make up our minds on what is the attitude of the Government to Communist infiltration in the Far East; and, having made up our minds on that attitude, to see that by using Clause 4 (2) that attitude, and that attitude alone, is conveyed as official policy to the peoples of the Far East.

Mr. Skeffington: Is it not a fact that the quotation the hon. Gentleman has given was only one of a series of quotations which were given to illustrate opinion from a variety of sources in Great Britain?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It was the only paper quoted as being a Socialist journal in that particular broadcast. The announcer made it clear that it was a Socialist paper. Listeners in the Far East, therefore, had quotations only from that paper from the Socialist benches, and could be forgiven if they thought that those views represented Socialist policy. They know that we have a Socialist Government and it was not asking very much of them to assume that it was official Government policy.
In fairness to the recent broadcasting services, I am glad to say that prominence has been given over the Far East network to the speech made by Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, who was quoted two days ago in the Cantonese news bulletin and represents more adequately and accurately what our people as a whole feel about what is happening in South East Asia than some of the things to which prominence has also been given. As he said, speaking of Malaya, the British are working towards a government of the people of Malaya, by the people of Malaya and for the people of Malaya, but the Communists are working for a government of the people of Malaya by Chinese thugs, for Russian commissars. I am delighted that those robust words were quoted in the Cantonese news bulletin. I wish success to this new venture and hope that no weakness, muddle or indecision on the part of H.M. Ministers here will add to difficulties there, and we wish all whose Empire service lies in this field every possible success.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish to correct the misapprehension which might go forward that His Majesty's Government have reserved the right to be consulted about matter to be broadcast. They have the right to be consulted about the times and the languages—in other words about the ambit and the kind of broadcasting to be done but no right to be consulted about what is put over in the broadcast. That remains the responsibility of the Corporation.
I rise to put one point only, which seems to be a point of substance. The erection and development of this broadcasting station is welcomed all over the House. It is to disseminate news, information and views of the British way of life in a world which is now becoming

a modern Tower of Babel by the use of mechanical means. It is also to be used to some extent to give a political viewpoint, not a party viewpoint, but a political approach, on matters of foreign affairs which clearly are of concern in the Far East. I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General what consultations there were with the Australian Government before this agreement was entered into.

Mr. Hobson: The responsibilities of my right hon. Friend under the terms of the Charter include the responsibility of administering the Vote. Questions of policy come under the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Commonwealth Relations.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. We are glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place and he can intervene if he wishes to do so. I am not asking this as a point of criticism, but I think it an important point. Australia's interest in this matter is as great as ours and the Empire and Commonwealth as envisaged in the speeches of hon. Members opposite has ceased to exist. There is a Socialist Government in Australia sharing our common approach and I hope the Under-Secretary will forgive me for saying that in matters where there is some little difference of opinion they are usually more progressive than we are, or they arrive at the right conclusion a few days before we do. But in general there is complete unity of approach and complete unity of view and it seems to me that Australia's concern in the islands to the north and north-west is of fundamental importance.
If the Commonwealth approach has been neglected in this matter, I suggest that we should communicate with the Prime Minister of Australia, or the appropriate officials, because, although they have commercial broadcasting in Australia, in addition to A.B.C. they have Government control over the allocation and erection of stations and have a considerable say in the matter and if they like to take a share in the administration and responsibility they should do so. We have recognised the principle of condominium in the Pacific and I do not see why we should not do so over the air. That would be a substantial contribution to Commonwealth understanding. It


could not possibly do any harm, but could quite conceivably do a world of good.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am heartily in favour of the idea of establishing adequate and sufficiently powerful overseas broadcasting Stations, but I am bound to ask why the Government should choose Singapore. Why do they choose Malaya? I should have thought there were a good many places in the Far East less liable to danger, internally and externally, in the years to come than Malaya. We all know what has happened in China during the last few weeks and the effect of what has happened there is to bring Burma, Malaya and Indo-China right into the front line of Communist attack. There may be very adequate technical answers to the point, but I should have supposed that Australia would be a better location, or, possibly, Ceylon. There may be technical reasons why it is not possible to choose those countries, but I should like to hear something from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain why this should be done in Malaya. I think it immensely important because we may find we have built a magnificent radio station only that it should fall into Russian-dominated hands at a later date. Therefore, the case for the choice of Singapore ought to be made in this House.
I do not envy those who are to have charge of this job of choosing matter which may be suitable for one country but not for another. I think it would be beyond the wit of man to devise a programme common to all those countries which is not liable to criticism in respect of some. Any subsequent speaker would have no difficulty in digging out a dozen broadcasts on which he could make some point of criticism. I share the hope that this station, when built in Singapore, or wherever it is to be, will be used to propagate the British way of life and I hope we shall not carry our sense of British fair play to the point of folly in dealing with Communist propaganda. One of the tragedies of this world is that it is not the bad men who are helping Communism very often, but the good men, the men who are so fair that they give Communists an advantage of which Communists make ruthless use. I hope

the news bulletins will be vigorous and strong and that we shall recognise Communism to be what it is—the enemy of us all—and that this station will be an instrument for combating it in the Far East. I hope we shall have the case made out for the selection of Singapore and Malaya as the site for this station.

5.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I shall do my best to answer some of the questions, even at so short notice. I was very glad to hear that in principle this decision of the Government and this Agreement is approved by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on behalf of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)——

Mr. W. J. Brown: On behalf of my party.

Mr. Mayhew: —on behalf of his party. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford was corrected on an important point by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), namely, in his reference to the use of the Government's powers in relation to the output of the B.B.C. In fact we have not taken the powers suggested by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford and I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it would be wrong for the Government to take those powers.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was not going beyond what is in the Order, or trying to give a false impression. If I did so, inadvertently, I am sorry. The Agreement says in 4 (2) and 4 (3):
The Corporation shall consult and collaborate with the Departments so specified and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding conditions in and policies of His Majesty's Government towards the countries so prescribed and other countries as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare the broadcast programmes in the national interests.
I did not wish to give an impression that they went further than that. The Government cannot dissociate themselves from providing background information which a broadcasting station may or may not use as it thinks fit.

Mr. Mayhew: That gives a better picture of the position.
The second question which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford asked was about consolation with the Ministry of


Defence. I can give him the assurance for which he asks. There was consultation. We have had great difficulty in choosing the site for this broadcasting station, not merely the strategical site, to which the hon. Member for Rugby referred, but the tactical site, so to speak, in the terms mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. We had the greatest difficulty in finding the site and it was largely for technical reasons that we have chosen the site which has been decided upon. I will not go into those technical reasons at length but I assure hon. Members that many of the factors mentioned were carefully considered. We are satisfied with this site, although it may have drawbacks; one was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham asked about Commonwealth consultation. The Commonwealth was informed that these decisions had been taken. My hon. Friend mentioned Australia, but it is not only Australia which will, we hope, be affected by this Agreement. There are India, Ceylon, New Zealand and other Commonwealth countries quite apart from foreign countries where we hope that this radio station will have an influence. I do not think it will be practicable to run a broadcasting station with a consistent policy, a consistent attitude, with up-to-date news, etc., by a co-operative venture so to speak. I think if one is dealing with this as a practical matter Great Britain must take the lead in the conduct of it.

Mr. Hale: The defence of the Northern Territory of Australia is very much a matter of the islands surrounding that Northern Territory. Australia has a special interest. No one was suggesting a co-operative venture, but is there any objection to offering a seat on the Board to Australia, for example?

Mr. Mayhew: I am sure that any views of the Australian Government on this subject will come to us. There is constant consultation on all these matters of foreign policy. That would include foreign publicity policy. I have no doubt that important matters of policy, for example the northern islands, would be a proper matter to be brought to our attention by Australia. It is the hope of the Government that this station will be a link

and a binding force between Commonwealth countries of South-East Asia in the way suggested.
There are two main criticisms I would make of the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. The first is that his approach so far as the output of the station is concerned seems to me to be a wholly negative one. He seemed to think that this broadcasting station would have the wholly negative aim of destructive criticism of Communism in the Far East. I do not deny that it will be one of the tasks of this station to combat the misrepresentations and distortions of Communist propaganda against Britain, British democracy and the British Commonwealth in the Far East. But I hope that it will have a positive influence by projecting the achievements and aims of British democracy. We have a fine story to tell in the Far East, where there is great interest in Britain and British democracy. We have only to look at certain independent countries to see that the influence of Britain from the economic and political point of view is strong in many ways. We want to strengthen that by spreading the truth about British democracy. We do not want to begin negatively with merely destructive attacks on Communism, although we shall not hesitate to defend ourselves against unfair and unscrupulous anti-Colonial propaganda in particular which is being launched against us in the Far East.
My second criticism of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford is that he showed scant respect for the need for objectivity in our output. That is, he criticised the B.B.C. for referring to unofficial strikes in this country and for quoting the "New Statesman and Nation." I grant him quite freely that neither unofficial strikes nor the "New Statesman and Nation" are in any way typical of our great British democracy, but the supposition that we ought to give a one-sided interpretation all the time is certainly not an attitude which I feel should be adopted. We need a little subtlety in our projection. All people who were concerned with political warfare during the war came out of it feeling that it was essential to tell the truth and be objective. In the long run it paid.
I should be sorry to adopt the kind of policy which seemed to be foreshadowed


in the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, or that the B.B.C. should lapse from their high standards of objectivity in the Far East. We hope that the B.B.C. will build up the same kind of reputation in the Far East that it has built up in Europe with its European services. If it does that, it will be doing a fine job for British democracy and for peace in the Far East.

5.37 p.m.

Major Bruce: There are one or two technicalities which I should like to put to the Assistant Postmaster-General. I should like to know on how many wavelengths it is proposed we shall broadcast from this station? Difficulties always arise when wavelengths are considered. As anyone in Europe knows, there is great congestion of wavelengths here, but I doubt if that would apply in the Far East. There are other problems. If one wants freedom from interference one chooses the short waves but that raises other difficulties which make it necessary to have very good receivers to get adequate reception. If one wants to broadcast by long wave, and if there is to be a sufficient range and freedom from interference, great power is needed behind the transmission. How do the B.B.C. propose to tackle these problems? Do they intend to utilise long waves, short waves or medium waves, and what methods have they adopted for securing wavelength co-ordination with the other States which are broadcasting in the same area?

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Hobson: It is difficult to answer questions of the technical character which my hon. and gallant Friend has raised. I can tell him the frequencies upon which the present low-power station at Singapore is operating, but the difficulty about the frequency upon which the new station will operate is that the allocations of frequencies are decided by international agreement. Unfortunately I cannot answer my hon. and gallant Friend because a conference is sitting at Mexico City, the purpose of which is to allocate the frequencies internationally. Until that conference has made its recommendations I am not in a position to say precisely on which wavelength the station will operate.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Agreement, dated 7th December, 1948, between His Majesty's Postmaster-General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, a copy of which was presented on 8th December, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. Adams.]

Orders of the Day — ROYAL AIR FORCE (ORGANISATION)

5.39 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I hope that the Secretary of State for Air is feeling none the worse for his experiences of yesterday. I have no desire to make things more difficult for him or for the R.A.F., but there are several matters to which I wish to refer which have not been said in this House or perhaps dealt with through the medium of the Press. Much has been said recently by various retired air marshals and others who profess to know the Service, and a considerable amount of it was true. But there is real disquiet in the country at the moment among those who are in the Royal Air Force and also the civilians at large. They still remember that the Royal Air Force is the first line of defence of this country, and that if it had not been for a small number of men and one particular Command in 1940, we would not be here today discussing the Service.
I wish to reiterate what I have said before on many occasions, that conscription on the present basis will not suit the Royal Air Force. Eighteen months service is not of real value. There are in the service more than 50 per cent. National Service men, men who are in for only 18 months. During that period they have to acquire discipline and learn the details of most complicated aircraft and ancillary equipment. I do not see how we can have an efficient service with 50 per cent. of the men serving for that short space of time. I would ask the Secretary of State to fight the battle for the Air Force with the Cabinet and to see if he can get preferential treatment for this particular Service. After all, preferential treatment has been given to the coalminers, because we want coal. Is it not equally important to have similar treatment for this fighting Service, to ensure that we have peace and to safeguard our shores?
I am unable to quote what has been said by a noble Lord in another place, but Lord Douglas quite recently said that unless something was done very quickly for the Royal Air Force it would die on its feet. That was said by a marshal of the Royal Air Force who has recently retired, and I believe that the Cabinet must give this matter their full consideration. Does the Cabinet really understand the problems of the Royal Air Force or of any of the other fighting Services? I often feel that it would be a very good thing if the Cabinet would take a holiday from this House and go to the I.D.C. for a short time and really learn something about Service matters. I am not referring to the Minister of Defence, because he has been connected with the fighting Services for a great many years. But I believe that some of the other Ministers could learn a lot if they made a particular study of our fighting Services.
I wish to refer to the discipline in the Royal Air Force. We recognise that over the last 20 or 30 years the method of discipline and so on has changed considerably, and a very good thing too. I well remember the time when as a young cadet I was bullied by a sergeant-major and marched round the square with pack and rifle for hours on end. I do not believe that that is the right method. But we have gone to the other extreme. It may have sounded attractive when Lord Montgomery promised the troops that they should have bedside lamps; they were almost promised breakfast in bed. We do not want that.
What we do want is a proper discipline which is fair to the individual and the Service. When I see officers and airmen walking about our towns with their caps stuck on the side of their heads, with their coats undone and grease round the collar I wonder how parents are going to look up to the Service and say, "That is what I want my boy to go into." It is quite wrong, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to impress that point upon some of his most senior officers. When they are making inspections and visiting stations they should smarten themselves up and set an example to the rest of the Service. When we see the Guards out on parade it is a great picture. The Guards have no great difficulty in obtaining recruits. I believe it would be all to the good for the Royal Air Force to

insist on smartness to achieve something of which we could be really proud.
I do not propose to refer to "Operation Sunrise," because much has been said about it and it is comparatively old news. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of it, except to say that I think the Air Force were badly treated in the Press. There was a substance of truth in what was said. After all, the reporters were there and I imagine that they were flying in the aircraft, and to a certain extent they gave a fair report. I do say, however, that the public relations branch of the Air Ministry failed miserably on that occasion. They could quite well have got out a snap statement giving the Air Force point of view. If they were not equal to the job, the Air Ministry should have seen that competent senior officers were on the station ready to give assistance to public relations. They did themselves an infinite amount of damage by not having an organisation ready to cope with any situation at that time.
I think that the B.B.C. could render much more assistance to the Royal Air Force. There are two retired air marshals on the Board of Governors of the B.B.C. Why do not we ask them to give the benefit of their knowledge both for recruiting, and about what the Air Force is doing for the nation? We had a review of the Royal Air Force on New Year's Eve, but nothing was said about Malaya and what the Royal Air Force did to keep the Colony going for weeks on end by bringing in supplies and men and materials to keep peace.
I would ask that the public relations department make more use of their own paper, the "Royal Air Force Review." In October and November they had an article and pages of pictures describing the Soviet Air Force. Some of it was quite inaccurate, and I got the impression that it was written by a Communist within the walls of Adastral House. Surely at this time we do not want to publicise the Soviet Air Force. I cannot imagine the Royal Air Force being given a favourable write-up in Moscow—when we get Yaks diving down on civil and military aircraft flying into Berlin and generally being completely unhelpful. I think the Ministry has to be really bold and set about these people who are trying to play the game of breaking it up from within.
I wish to refer to the question of leadership and morale. In my view there is no doubt that the Air Force today is deficient in leadership. That I think is due mainly to organisation. As is generally known, the Service is split into three divisions. First of all flying, which seems to count least of all, and then administrative and technical. Stations from which the aircraft operate are composed as I have outlined, and that system is reflected at group and command headquarters. It is known, as the right hon. Gentleman will well know, as the "three prong system." There is a certain amount to commend the system, because in certain respects there is a saving in man hours. But, generally speaking, there are definite drawbacks, to two of which in particular I will refer.
The first is that on a bomber or fighter station two-thirds of the men on the station come under the command of noncombatant officers, officers who never sit in an aeroplane in any capacity, except perhaps to test some piece of equipment. I think that that is entirely wrong. In a fighting Service the men, in the main, ought to be commanded by men who know their business of flying aeroplanes. I have no doubt that the technical officers are extremely good at their jobs, whether it be radio, engineering or anything else. But, nevertheless, they are not aviators, and I believe the men would react much more favourably if they were commanded by combatant officers, the men who do the fighting.
The second point is that the technical branches share to a very large extent the responsibility for the Service. The general duties officer, the pilot, gets very little experience at all in command in his early days in the Service. He is merely left there to learn how to fly his aeroplane, he gets no real opportunity of exercising command in his early years in the Serwhich I admit is difficult enough. But vice. The general duties officers are the men who will be the future Chief of Air Staff and will fill several of the more senior posts at the Air Ministry, and on the Air Council—not all but most of them. It seems most unfortunate that he should not get an opportunity to command in his early years. I do not think that this is a very good example of the impressive planning on which the Government prides itself. Administration is all

right up to a point, but there is no substitute for really doing the job. In the Navy there are large shore establishments, but nevertheless the men, whatever their branch, have to go to sea every so often and they are in touch with their profession. Not so in the Air Force. Many of them never fly.
I wonder how many air marshals can really fly a modern aeroplane? How many could step into a Spitfire or even a Mosquito and fly it? Not very many. I know of one or two regular flying men but most of them have probably not flown an aeroplane for 15 or 20 years. It really is deplorable and it ought to be put right. If something on these lines could be done to give the young general duties officer the opportunity to exercise more command, there would be a reduction in the overall establishments throughout the Service. It is most important that the atmosphere of flying should permeate the whole Service. We would get that atmosphere if we had larger squadrons. Today the squadrons are minute because they have echelons and other units rendering assistance. Every airman likes to think that he belongs to a famous squadron. Even if he is a cook he likes to belong to a squadron instead of merely being a number and living as one of many hundreds on a station.
The squadrons in time of peace should be expanded even at the expense of centralisation. I do not say that that system could be carried on in war, but then I do not think that it is possible to have the same set-up in peace as in war. We must be ready to expand and to give efficient training. I do not think that the present system has had any great effect on the serviceability of aircraft. One hears only too often of the difficulties of the Air Force in keeping machines flying and bringing about a high rate of serviceability. Unquestionably it is bad for morale. I believe that there is too much over-centralisation in the R.A.F. The Secretary of State admitted recently that there were 265 courses of instruction open to the whole of the Service. We know that this is a highly technical Service and that we must have a number of courses, but I suggest that many of them could be combined or done away with altogether.
There are far too many branches in the Air Force. I will give a few examples. There are the provost,


the catering, the physical fitness and the marine branches. Many of these jobs could be done by general duties officers. They were done before the war very efficiently. After all, there is very little to teach a man in order to enable him to operate a small motor boat around Calshot. A man who is off flying for a limited period could well be taught another branch of the Service. Furthermore, these branches offer only a limited career to the men who join them. Their prospects of promotion could not be more gloomy. If they ever reach squadron-leader rank, most of them will be fortunate. The consequence is that the best men are not attracted, yet the Air Force wants the best and nothing but the best. People tend to get into what might be called backwaters, and usually we get a poor type who want to go into those branches.
I now refer to the R.A.F. Regiment. This subject has been discussed before. I referred to it myself last autumn. I cannot for the life of me see what are the functions of the R.A.F. Regiment. I am prepared to believe that the regiment does an extremely good job in carrying out its duties in many parts of the world, but I suggest that it is a task which ought to be undertaken entirely by the Army. If the Army will not co-operate to do the job, then they should be made to do it. Certainly, it is not the job of the Royal Air Force to train troops on the ground for the defence of aerodromes. I know that there are arguments on both sides. My view is that it is extravagant and expensive. I do not think that anybody really knows the functions of the Regiment. The R.A.F. Regiment was formed after the fall of Singapore when the Government were most concerned about the danger of airfields at home being occupied. A quick decision was arrived at. In practice this ought to be an Army responsibility.
There is no doubt that many of the establishments in the Service are inflated. There is a tendency to promote far too many good N.C.Os. and warrant officers to junior officer posts where they will never get promotion. That procedure ruins a good N.C.O. and puts him into a job where perhaps he is an indifferent officer with even less responsibility than he had previously. This argument applies also to the technical branch.
On the subject of pay, the Minister of Defence made a statement a few weeks

ago. The concessions were better than nothing. The right hon. Gentleman appears rather hurt at my remarks. I assure him that if he discusses this matter with Air Force men he will find that my view is the correct one. The officers were horrified when they heard of this increase. They had expected something better. If the Minister had given them their 6s. a day allowance free of Income Tax he would have had a good reception, but to give 6s. and to tax it, is to give an increase which amounts to nothing at all when one considers the commitments which an officer must meet. No one is more hard up today than the middle class professional man in all walks of life, in particular in the R.A.F. The pay is virtually the same as it was 15 or 20 years ago. The man is faced with all the problems of postings and of educating his children who may have to go to a new school almost every year. Many of these men are worried to death about their budgets. What has been given will be no real assistance.
I should like to point out one real anomaly to the Minister of Defence. I refer to the question of the G/D officer who admittedly has flying risks. He flies high speed aircraft and often it is a dangerous occupation. One does not want to overestimate that side of the question, because it is part of his every-day life, but in the end he carries a responsibility for doing the job. He gets the same pay as the man who works on the ground with the exception of the flying officer and pilot officer who get an extra 3s. a day. The flight-lieutenant and the squadron-leader get the same pay as those in the technical branch who sit in a nice warm office provided with tea and other comforts. That is quite wrong. We should follow the example of the Navy and pay risk pay—submarine pay or flying pay such as is given in the Fleet Air Arm. I know that the argument is that the general duties officer, the pilot, gets quicker promotion. Of course, that argument cuts both ways. If a man gets quicker promotion and becomes a group captain, he is retired sooner than the technical officer, so that his period of expectation as an officer drawing full pay and allowances is less than that of the officer on the ground who gets the same pay for taking no risks.
Another point is that, compared with the technical officer, the general duties officer is at a big disadvantage on the question of married quarters. As a rule the technical officer has had longer service usually because he has gone through Halton and become an N.C.O. and then a commissioned officer. His service, added up on a points system, gives him a married quarter much sooner than the general duties officer. There is considerable dissatisfaction in the Air Force about the allocation of married quarters. I ask the Secretary of State to inquire into the whole matter of the allocation of these quarters and see whether he can do something to make the system more fair.
Today the R.A.F. do not know what they are meant to be doing. There is no clear picture of direction to the Service as a whole. Before the war it was generally accepted that their job was to fly. Everybody worked to that end to get the aircraft serviceable and to get the maximum amount of flying training. I consider that the staffs today are much too large. They have been carried on from the end of the war and they have never been sufficiently pruned. For instance, we have the central fighter establishment and the central bomber establishment which are very fine affairs. I have no doubt that some of the results obtained are good, but I am told by men in the Service—senior officers and others—that these two units could well be dispensed with. They are most extravagant units and the work could be carried out on other stations.
The branches are all too watertight. Nobody really knows what another branch is doing, and there is far too much paper work throughout the Service. The right hon. Gentleman should get busy and form yet another committee to go into all these and many other matters. There is disquiet today both in the Service and outside. Over the last 30 years the Air Force has built up a great tradition for fighting and for the way in which it does its job. In the Berlin air lift we have a most magnificent example. We want to improve on these things and to get the best men into the R.A.F. Why are not the headmasters recommending boys to go into the Air Force? I put it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that they are not doing so, and there must be some reason why headmasters are not

backing up the Service to the extent to which they should.
I put forward one final suggestion. The time has come for some of the more senior officers to retire and make way for younger men. We want men of the middle 40's to accept the highest commands, men who can fly aeroplanes, who can set the right spirit and who have themselves graduated through the Staff Colleges. But they must start soon; it cannot be left long. Much can be done to bring about a better Royal Air Force. I believe that Lord Douglas was right when he said "Unless something is done, the Royal Air Force will die on its feet."

6.1 p.m.

Wing-Commander Millington: I remember during the recent war, when I was a squadron commander in Bomber Command, going to a conference at a training aerodrome which was very heavily over-established. I will not mention its name, but airmen will know which one I mean. During the course of that conference, a senior officer said, "This station runs perfectly, except for flying," There was a certain amount of criticism of my rather jejune comment that, if the flying had run perfectly, it would not have mattered about the rest of the station.
I want to talk about flying, its purpose and the function of the Royal Air Force in relation to flying. Those who are engaged in the occupation of flying, either in the Royal Air Force or in civil flying, are exceedingly fortunate in that they have an occupation which employs the most recent and by far the most thrilling method of getting from one place to another that has ever been invented. It is almost impossible for landlubbers properly to understand what there is in flying to an airman.
For example, it is very difficult to explain the purely aesthetic thrill of leaving the ground at 4 o'clock on a November afternoon, when there is a heavy overcast of low cloud, and flying up from damp, dark, dreary and miserable weather, through 9,000 or 10,000 feet of cloud, into clear sunshine, and flying for an hour or so in beautiful sunny weather before a second twilight and a second dark. It is very difficult to explain exactly what the thrill is to anybody engaged in making these machines and in flying them


in close formation at low altitude and at high speed. It is very difficult to explain the immense aesthetic thrill of going faster than people have ever done before.
All of these things are part of the enormous attraction of flying itself to young men, and they are the justification for having an Air Force at all. I believe that the whole of the organisation of the Royal Air Force today should have only one purpose, and that is, that as many aircraft and as many airmen as possible should be put into the air for the purpose of completing their training during non-operational periods, so that we have a nation of men trained to a true appreciation of the instrument which modern science has put into our hands and capable of using it most competently. Because of that enormous attraction of the instruments of the Royal Air Force, I believe that a grave injustice is done to the R.A.F. by opponents of the present Administration—and, in this instance, I am not referring to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey), or indeed to his speech, his record in the R.A.F. throughout the war or his service as a Member of Parliament—but, in particular, to Press comments on the state of the R.A.F.
I believe a great injustice is done to the Service and to the men who are doing a magnificent job in it, particularly the flying men, when we have a concentration of the emphasis upon maladministration, upon low morale and on all the dreariness of which we read from time to time in the newspapers. In fact, I believe that, whereas it was true immediately after the cessation of hostilities in 1945—and the reason must have been apparent to the majority of hon. Members of this House why morale in the R.A.F. had sunk to a low level—the fact now is that there has been a progressive building-up of morale, simply because the causes of that declension were removed as soon as the first war run-down had been completed.
That does not mean that the whole of the administration of the R.A.F. is free from criticism. I have very much the same view as the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield that there is something wrong with the relationship between flying formations and ground formations. Whereas, in the pre-war days and in the early days of the war,

flight commanders who were pilots had the responsibility for ground crews, who serviced specific aircraft, which they could fly and of which they knew the purpose, nowadays there has been over-specialisation, which has brought a second consequence that we now have a rather inchoate mass of technical airmen who are grossly under-officered and who suffer from an inadequate degree of proper welfare attention. I believe that some compromise between the pre-war system and that in use today will have to be worked out, so that, when officers are created for specific flying or technical purposes, they will become officers in the same sense as an officer in the Army, having responsibility for men management and for looking after the welfare of N.C.O.s and other ranks.
If there is one reason why morale is a little shaken in some sections of the R.A.F., I believe that it lies not so much in the administration and organisation of the R.A.F. itself, but in the political usage of the R.A.F. The criticism which one can level at the R.A.F. is, in fact, not a criticism of the R.A.F. at all, but rather a criticism of the grand strategy which employs the R.A.F. at this moment for certain purposes. I would say, for example, of the affair of 7th January, and of the effect which it has had in the minds of the airmen, that instructions were given for two tactical reconnaissance flights for political purposes which caused men to take risks considerably in excess of the proper risks that should be taken by the Royal Air Force at a time when we are not engaged in specific hostilities.
That is the kind of thing which causes a considerable lowering of morale, not only among the airmen engaged, but, what is of enormous importance in all Service questions, a lowering of morale of their dependents, who see husbands and sons sticking out their necks in what they consider to be unnecessary directions. I think it is quite likely that it would be impossible to explain at all times and in detail the reasons for the specific use of specific units of the Royal Air Force, but I think that more could be done to present a clearer picture of the general use by the Defence Ministries, so that serving men and their dependents should have a clearer idea of the potentiality of risk which airmen would have to face.
I have no fear about the spirit and the morale of the Royal Air Force. I have seen many units during the last three years, and I believe that even those who have come quite newly to the Air Force and who have no recollection of it during the recent war, have properly inherited the traditions of the Air Force which have been built up over the last 30 years. What is needed is a little more close appreciation of what the man on the spot is feeling, a little more appreciation of the fact that the individual airman does not quite feel part of the whole thing, that he does not quite feel that he has a specific officer looking after his interests. If something can be done to tidy that up, I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that the Royal Air Force today could, if called upon, give as good an account of itself as it has ever done during the last 30 years.

6.12 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Had we known that there would be an evening for discussing this Adjournment subject, I am sure that many of us who have been associated with the Royal Air Force during the last few years, and have an affection for that Service, would have been prepared to tackle this matter in the grand manner. However, the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) raised this subject, and I only wish that the title chosen by him had been a little more fortunate. If anything, it was a little alarmist.
I have always thought it was the Royal Air Force which, since the Armistice in 1945, had the biggest flop in spirit, morale, or that intangible thing which keeps a great force going when its job is finished.
I remember, before the Armistice, people on bomber stations saying that they did not quite know what they would do, because all their targets had disappeared. We had the finest implement of war the world has ever seen, a great force and a wonderful spirit, but suddenly its work was ended as though a guillotine had fallen upon it. It is my experience that the Royal Air Force would never have had its morale or efficiency questioned in the years following the Armistice had we been able to offer a section of the people in that Service

permanent jobs for the rest of their lives. After all, that is what most people want; they expect it in industry and commerce, so why should they not expect it in the Services, also?
I remember, at the height of the bombing campaign, talking about the post-war situation with the wireless operator of a Lancaster. He had joined the Royal Air Force because he was attracted by the life, and wanted to do his service in that branch of the Armed Forces. He was so taken up with his experience during the war that, when it was over, he hoped to be able to carry on in the Air Force. I told him that I thought that was a fine thing to do, and that there would be opportunities for doing so. I asked him whether it meant that he had not much of a job before the war. "Oh, no," he said, "I was the pianist in the so-and-so dance band." I should have thought that the salary that he could get as a pianist in a well-known dance band would be far higher than he could expect to receive if he rose to the rank of squadron-leader as a member of a bomber crew. But he was so attracted to the Air Force that he had given up all idea of resuming his old profession in which, I presume, it would be possible to rise to greater heights in the monetary sense than by being an officer in the Air Force. But the flop came.
It seems to me that the one mistake made in the intervening years is that the opportunity was not taken while that spirit existed among those people who were willing to go on serving. Three years ago I was in a Royal Air Force hospital, and about that time people were hoping to get some answer to their applications for permanent commissions. I saw the forms they had to fill up, many of the details of which had no relevance to the matter. I am constantly meeting these people and find that they are still waiting and hoping for an answer to their applications. Only last week I came across a serving officer who, to my surprise, was a navigator. He had already got his permanent commission. He told me that, as far as he knew, he was the only navigator who had been given a permanent commission, and he thought himself very lucky indeed. Very often we who served in the Royal Air Force meet people who have given up all hope of remaining in the Service; they have left the Royal Air Force, and are doing other jobs.
There are further characteristics which ought, I think, to be looked into by this House and by the Air Minister. One is the question of overdone secrecy. As far as the general public are aware, there is a secret operation going on day by day—the supplying of Berlin by this country. How many of our people see the magnificent work being done? I remember, when we were sitting on the advisory committee and considering the question of private flying, a representative from the Ministry of Education was present. One question put to this representative was, "Are not the children still doodling on their desks and drawing pictures of aircraft as we know the schoolboys did during the war?" The reply was, "Oh no, they never do that now." "Why not?" the representative was asked. This time the answer was, "They never see any aircraft nowadays." As far as the public is concerned there is very little news about this magnificent airlift.
We have been told of the work going on in Malaya. When we were using this island as a bombing station, we had to keep the operations as secret as we could, although I know that the enemy knew far more about them than did the great mass of the general public in this country. I think the Air Force should take the public into its confidence. Let them see what a grand job the serving people are doing, even today.
The question of the recent operation "Sunrise" was brought up by the hon. and gallant Member. I presume that, as far as the public are aware, that operation was a failure. The public have probably got the impression that there is something really wrong with the Air Force because the weather stopped it from carrying out its operational activities. Had the public been kept properly informed as to how the weather intervened during the war, and how it stopped activities, if they had been told the whole story of the incident concerning the two German battleships, "Scharnhorst" and "Gneisenau," and why those battleships got through, they would probably have appreciated, more than they did, the work of the Air Force. If the public only realised that in this part of the world, situated, as it is, on the edge of the Atlantic, the weather is highly unpredictable, and that there is no more difficult place over which to fly,

they would be able to put these happenings in their proper perspective, and would realise how difficult is the position.
There is one point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister. It is that on this small island there is always a potential ready to move into the Navy. For instance, people around my constituency spend a great deal of time on the Broads during the summer, and there are the little ships off the Norfolk coast. That, of course, is the experience of every hon. Member who has a constituency impinging on the coast. There is this constant activity on our waters, whether inland or at sea. There is a great reservoir on which the Navy has always drawn from the time of Alfred the Great down to the present day. But the great Force, whether we like it or not, is going to be the Air Force. We are the centre of a great Commonwealth; we have no land communications like Russia, and as our people must cross the seven seas the method of their travel must obviously be by air. It seemed to us on the permanent advisory committee that we ought to see that all our young folk are made as air-minded as they were made sea-minded by the chance of history.
In our report we pointed out that in many countries private flying, gliding and, in several instances, the construction of model aircraft received direct financial assistance from the State. One of the main reasons for such assistance is the defence value of those activities. We know that discussions have been going on ever since that report was issued in August, 1947. We hope that some tangible result will emerge in the near future, but in view of the fact that this is a Debate on the efficiency of the Royal Air Force I thought it wise to mention the point, in passing, so that the Ministers concerned could be alive to the fact that there is a wonderful potential for the Air Ministry in this country if only they would provide the impetus, with the other Ministries, like that of Civil Aviation, in order that we may have the same reserve always behind the Air Force as that which the Navy has always had in its history. That is important not only for defence purposes, because future movement will be by air. We are the people who, as the centre of a commonwealth, have to do more moving than any other collection of nations. It is our duty,


in this House, to see that every opportunity is given to the younger generation to exploit the wonders we have discovered in the earth.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I am a little troubled by what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) as to exactly how it will be possible for children to see the air lift to Berlin? Having been linked up with the public relations side of the Air Ministry during the war, I can say that I believe we have today in Fleet Street a great number of quite brilliant journalists who were with the public relations department and who are more than willing to do everything they possibly can for the Royal Air Force to publicise it. If they are not able to do so, it seems to me that it must be because there is something wrong with what they have to sell.
I am particularly glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) raised this issue this evening. It should be raised as frequently as possible. Obviously the younger generation are not entering the R.A.F. to anything like the extent we should expect. We have all received many letters from men already in the R.A.F., men who have been called up, complaining about the lack of anything to do. We hear from parents who are very worried about the future of their sons, and about what will happen to them as long as they stay in the R.A.F. Then there are organisations such as the R.A.F. Association which today is more successful than the British Legion in recruiting old R.A.F. types. Yet this association does not seem to be able to get the younger people interested, or to get them to want to join the Royal Air Force.
I put that down to the feeling amongst, say, the pilots that the present people in command, those at present at the head in the Air Force, are people who had very little to do with the pilots' life and the pilots' work during the last war. Many of them were mixed up with the 1914–18 war and others with the period just after that. These men are in key positions. They are too old. It may be that that would be a good thing in the Army and the Navy, but the Air Force is a new force in which undoubtedly it

is not a good thing. We want the younger men, the men who served brilliantly during the war and who are famous names, to be in command today and to be in the key positions.
Next comes the question of family life. The younger pilots want to get married; older ones are married. They simply cannot find proper housing accommodation. My own brother-in-law is a Group Captain and at the present moment he is in Singapore. His wife and children have had to remain in this country; yet he was abroad all through the war and they saw practically nothing of him then. The same thing is happening to many others. I feel that very little is being done to try to make it possible for families to keep together. I do not entirely lay the blame for that on the Air Ministry. It may be largely Treasury pressure from behind. If that is so then we in this House must press the Treasury to give the Air Ministry the opportunity to make it attractive for young men to join the R.A.F. There is a great need for better amenities of all kinds, not only abroad but at home. Things have greatly changed since the war so far as amenities are concerned and especially with regard to homes and the possibility of family life.
Pay is very bad. It is in no way sufficient to tempt people. Furthermore, the young men know they will be leaving the service at a fairly early age. Unless a scheme is introduced whereby after they leave the Air Force they can be placed into some other kind of Government employment or given some other job, it seems that we shall have to wait a long time before we get people really interested. It is inevitable that after all the publicity during the war there should be, amongst the public, a certain lack of interest in films about the Royal Air Force or in reading about it. That is a natural reaction which can continue for a long time. I suppose many of the papers do not want to publish, nor do the film producers want to produce films, about news which may not be very attractive. That danger exists. The Air Ministry must do all they can to get to the root of such problems.
Mainly—I think almost entirely—the reasons for lack of interest are questions of pay, amenities and above all housing for families; those are the critical problems from the point of view of persuading


the ordinary young man to join the R.A.F. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) spoke of the incidents which occurred at the beginning of January. No doubt they will be debated at some other time but that sort of thing greatly alarms parents and families. I think the subject will have to be discussed in much more detail later.
I beg the Air Ministry to put before the Treasury the fact that unless they can give more money to make things easier for people who join we shall not get what we badly need—the very best type in the R.A.F. We must not spend too much time on technical work, making people feel that the Air Force is becoming anything like a branch of a university. It frightens away young men who would make brilliant pilots in the long run and who are terrified by all the paper and by the technical details upon which they are made to work.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sure the House is greatly indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising this question this evening. Incidentally, may I make him an overdue apology, because on one occasion, in an interjection, I attributed to him certain remarks about the strategy of attacking the enemy potential behind the iron curtain which actually were made by another hon. Member. I take this opportunity to make the necessary apology, and to rectify the mistake which I made.
At the back of all our minds in dealing with this question of the efficiency of the Air Force is the question which was raised yesterday at Question Time. I had a great deal of sympathy for the Secretary of State for Air, because he was doing his best to defend what I thought was an impossible position. All this all revolves upon the efficiency of the Air Force, Sir.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think I should tell the hon. Member, who obviously appreciated that I was looking at him, that I am very doubtful whether what he is apparently beginning to say comes within the purview of this Debate. I hope he will not develop that point.

Mr. Hughes: I have great respect for you, Sir, but I fail to understand how you can suggest that what I am about to begin to say is out of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps if I am a little more definite the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point. To develop any matter about the incidents which were the subject matter of Questions yesterday would be irrelevant, I think, in a Debate dealing with the efficiency of the Royal Air Force.

Captain Crookshank: I do not wish to question your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I thought that on the Adjournment any hon. Member could address the House on any subject he liked, and that it was merely a convention that, because we are now discussing the efficiency of the Air Force, we should discuss that only. Surely, at all times it is open to a Member who catches your eye on the Adjournment to raise any matter which does not involve legislation?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I have every respect, Sir, for your judgment as Deputy-Speaker, but I have my doubts about your capacity as a clairvoyant.

Captain Crookshank: I should like to have established whether what I have just said was right or wrong, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because it may affect future Debates, whatever happens to this one.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to deal with the question——

Captain Crookshank: I raised a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry to press you, if it is inconvenient.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is correct in principle, but my own personal view is that when a specific matter is selected for Debate, then, so far as possible, the House should confine itself to that subject, and not range over other subjects.

Captain Crookshank: I take it that that is a matter of convention which is for the general convenience of the House, and which I quite accept. I wanted to have it on record, however, that it is quite possible to raise other topics if that is desired, provided legislation is not involved.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite correct in that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am sorry to be a bone of contention in this House. The subject of the Debate is, I understand, the efficiency of the Royal Air Force. I suggest that this is a subject which ought to be discussed from a rather wider angle, and that it should not develop into a technical discussion between experts, because we know the enthusiasm of the experts for their particular ideas about strategy; and technical experts, when they come to discuss their pet theories, should certainly be checked by the general body of public opinion represented in this House. That is to take a very much wider view than the views that have been put before the House in the speeches we have just heard. The hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) referred to the efficiency of the Air Force in relation to its political usage.

Wing-Commander Millington: May I ask the hon. Member if he does not think he is not an efficient clairvoyant?

Captain Crookshank: He could not get it clear.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The exact phrase the hon. and gallant Member used was "political usage of the Air Force," and he proceeded to elaborate certain technical arguments in discussing the proficiency of the Air Force. In discussing the proficiency of the Air Force my question is: to what extent does it serve the nation, and of what particular use is it to us in giving us security? I submit that we have to discuss the proficiency of the Air Force in relation to the possible usages of the Air Force. What is the purpose of the Air Force in the Middle East, for example? It is to protect certain strategic interests, and the efficiency of the Air Force must be considered in relation to the question whether or not it achieves that purpose. I suggest that when the efficiency of the Air Force is such that five machines are shot down with loss of life, it passes outside purely technical, tactical, strategical and academic considerations, and that the efficiency of the Royal Air Force must be judged according to wider considerations, which we all have in mind.
I am an ordinary layman, and not a technical expert in warfare at all. I am not a technical expert in the use of bombers and fighters. I want to know how this efficiency can be considered in relation to the broad general question of security. I challenge the whole conception put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have spoken, that the Air Force is a guarantee of security and safety. I have the greatest possible fear that if this argument is developed, and if we relate it to the policy of the Government, we shall be involved in enormous expenditure. The experts in air warfare will want this, that and the other thing, in times when these things cost an enormous amount of money. After we have piled up a huge bill for the Air Force, I fear, we shall not get the security that this House would wish to obtain for the people of these islands.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member challenges the House. Perhaps he would say what he would do with the Air Force if he were in charge of it? Would he scrap it, or what would he do with it?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am coming to the question of what I would do with the Air Force. I would certainly say, "Scrap it." I have not made any bones about that in this House. I say the nation would be better off without an Air Force, and that in atomic warfare the people of this country would be safer if we had no Air Force at all.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that to scrap the Air Force would require legislation.

Mr. Hughes: When you arrived, Mr. Speaker, I thought my difficulties were over, but I find they are only beginning. However, I was diverted from my argument only by the interjection of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey). Perhaps, at another time I shall be able to answer his question in great detail and, at least, to my own satisfaction. But I am not at all satisfied that we have an efficient Air Force for the purpose of protecting the security and life of the people of this country. I do not believe that the Air Force, with all the bombers and fighters, can stop the atomic bomb. It is, surely, recognised in the world today that the next war will be fought with rockets, with atomic energy. I fail to see that the hon.


and gallant Member for Macclesfield produced any ideas to show that the Air Force is becoming any more efficient in that respect.

Air-Commodore Harvey: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has said something which I think is most unfair, and I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I was dealing only with the efficiency of the Air Force within itself, and not with strategy.

Mr. Speaker: Under the Rules of Order pertaining to the Adjournment the hon. Member can wander widely. There is no protection.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I submit that this is a wider matter than the technical arguments produced by the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield. He knows as well as I do that in the later stages of the last war atomic bombs were dropped in Japan. If he is not to heed those lessons, if he imagines that we should build up an Air Force on the lines of the one we had in the last war, on the theory that bombers and fighters will be employed in the next war as in the last war, I say that the hon. and gallant Member is under a delusion.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Assuming that the British Air Force is scrapped, does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the Russians should keep their Air Force at its present strength?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: That is a further invitation to me to digress outside the limits of this Debate. If necessary, I am prepared to deal with that point at the proper time. I am trying to bring the hon. and gallant Gentleman down to an appreciation of the fact that we are living in an age of atomic bombs, and no evidence has been produced to show how fighters and bombers and the sort of Air Force in which the hon. and gallant Member served so gallantly in the last war are relevant to atomic warfare, which is no longer a dream but a reality. We have reached the stage of rocket warfare. I do not know how the R.A.F. can possibly prevent rockets descending on this country. I discussed this question with technical experts in America, and I listened to the American Secretary for Air, Mr. Symington, addressing a meeting in New York on the question of the Berlin air lift. There are certain aspects of the air lift which

have to be considered. The argument produced on that occasion was that the air lift was not only to help the starving people of Berlin, but was also a sort of practice for what might happen if war should, unfortunately, come again.
The hon. and gallant Member talked about attracting people into the Air Force. For what are we attracting people into the Air Force, and teaching them to bomb? I presume that we teach our bombers to obliterate the enemy. We used the weapon of the bomber in the last war, as the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron Leader Kinghorn) has pointed out, for the purpose of obliterating the enemy and the civil population. If we had war tomorrow, and war in the air with the Russians, and Berlin became the headquarters of the Russian Air Force, I have no doubt that we would forget all about our sympathy with the civilian population of Berlin and proceed to obliterate it, as the Americans obliterated Hiroshima. I object very strongly to taking our young people and training them to be what they must be in the next war—just mass murderers. That is the reality of every war. There is no guarantee that an atomic bomb will not be dropped on a city of one million people. Whether that city is German or Russian, there are human beings in it, just the same. What we are doing is to train our young fellows in the R.A.F. in technical efficiency for the purpose of mass murder.
Even so, I presume that the question of the efficiency of the Air Force must be considered in relation to strategy in the Middle East. The Air Force is in the Middle East for what purpose? In the old days it used to be said that we needed the whole area of the Middle East for the defence of India; but now we have no India to defend, and I wonder whether we are justified in spending a great deal of money in the Middle East and on the R.A.F. for the purposes which have produced the unfortunate results which are apparent just now. Mount Sinai has come into the news after 5,000 years. Mount Sinai is in the wilderness. We were told that Moses was taking the people out of the wilderness into the Promised Land. Today, men are taking us away from the Promised Land and back into the wilderness.
What is the truth about our bases in the Middle East and our collection of aeroplanes in the Middle East? I have frequently pointed out in this House that the Middle East is regarded as a potential base of attack upon the oilfields of Russia. That is the truth, and the Minister of Defence cannot deny it. He cannot deny that at one stage of the last war—and it has been discussed in detail in the Swedish White Book—the Allies had a plan, as the hon. and gallant Member knows, for bombing the oilfields of the Caucasus. If we face the fact, that is exactly the purpose for which we need bases for the R.A.F. in the Middle East today. I would feel safer in this country if we had no Air Force at all, because I do not know how the Air Force can defend this country with its congested population in the event of atomic air war. I suggest that although this may be wide of the discussion, and may not deal with organisation, flights, day-to-day tactics, and strategy, this is the background against which we must consider every item of expenditure on the Royal Air Force.
I was sorry for the Minister yesterday when he tried to defend the impossible case which he had to defend. If we did not have an Air Force in the Middle East, we would not have Members on the Government Front Bench trying to extricate themselves from such an impossible position. I believe that the people of this country would be very much reassured if we took away our aeroplanes from the Middle East, as we have taken them out of India. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that in certain parts of the world we have given the people Home Rule, and that we have cleared out. We have heard all sorts of prophecies in this House about the terrible things that would happen in India when we left India. Why should we not leave the Middle East as well?
Cannot we get all the education, enthusiasm and technical experience of our young people and harness it to constructive work? When talking about the efficiency of the R.A.F., we should consider what the R.A.F. is for and what our strategy is for. On every possible occasion, those of us who challenge this assumption, and say that we have to consider it against the broad background of creative activity and the building up of

a new world, should put this point of view before the House.

6.49 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I understand that there is an agreement whereby we shall soon pass to another subject, and I should not like anyone to think that the interest of this House as a whole, or of my hon. and gallant Friends, in the R.A.F. is merely limited to this short Debate. It should be made quite clear that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) was fortunate enough to select this subject for an Adjournment Debate, and that it should not be regarded as a full-dress discussion of all the range of topics involved in the strategical purposes of the R.A.F. or. indeed, in its internal organisation.
I imagine that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this topic because it is a preview of the discussions which are bound to take place on his Estimates in a comparatively short time. He will then find that there will be a lot further to be said on both sides of the House about what is I think true—a certain feeling of anxiety about the Royal Air Force today. It may be in the Force itself, as my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out, and it certainly is elsewhere. There have been disquieting reports, and disquieting things have been said by high R.A.F. officers, both serving and retired, about their own problems, which will have to be probed. If I may say so, the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself is doing a good deal of probing. I understand he is doing a great deal of visiting of the Royal Air Force up and down the country, and I hope that as a result of those visits and his staff consultations, which presumably will take place afterwards, he will be able himself to form a sound estimate of what is wrong, if anything is wrong, and will be able to come forward later on with some of the answers, which he may not be able to give tonight to my hon. and gallant Friend's questions.
It certainly does seem that on the more obvious points, such as pay, housing and amenities, which are basic to the contentment of the men themselves, there are grievances of all kinds. However, I hope it will not go out that necessarily all


accommodation in the Royal Air Force is bad, because I must say that I was indeed pleased a few months ago, when the Americans first came over, to find how delighted the Americans were with the good accommodation in our own R.A.F. stations to which they came, compared with what they had been having to use in the United States during recent months. I think it should go on record that our good is probably the best that can be had. The trouble is that there is not enough of it. I hope that it will be the aim of the Secretary of State to do his best to improve the bad and to see that what is good does not deteriorate.
My hon. and gallant Friend touched upon one topic of enormous interest and extreme importance, and that is discipline. It may be that from the very nature of the case the Royal Air Force has had to adopt for that purpose different bases from those of the other two Services; but if I may venture a criticism—seeing it as I have done for so many years, because my constituency is one in which famous squadrons have always been posted—it is of the tremendously rapid changes and repostings of officers, particularly station commanders. I am not fully acquainted with the details of these things, but it must surely be wrong to change the stations commander too frequently. Almost every Recess when I go to the local station I find somebody new in command. That, of course, must militate against the commanding officer's own morale, because on coming there he has a house, and then in perhaps five, six or eight months he is sent off to another station, with all the complication and expense of moving house, particularly if he is married and has children. I do hope that a little more stability can be given in that type of command.
In the Army an officer who gets command of a battalion has a reasonable expectation that he will command that battalion for a certain period. But from my inquiries I do not find that there is any reasonable expectation, at present at any rate, for officers of that rank in the Royal Air Force. That applies not only to officers of that rank. Not very long ago I heard of a quite junior officer who over the last three and a half years had averaged not more than two months on one station; almost as soon as he had

arrived and unpacked his bag, and before he got to know his messmates, he was sent off somewhere else.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will examine that problem, which I think is fundamental to discipline. It is fundamental to the real basis of Discipline—in my view at any rate—which is that the officer should know his men. I quite agree that in the Royal Air Force the same responsibility is not put upon all officers. Indeed, that was part of the complaint of my hon. and gallant Friend. The same responsibility for looking after their men is not put upon Royal Air Force officers as is put upon officers of the Army or Navy. The system is different, and I am not quarrelling with that, if that be the right answer. But certainly if constant changes are taking place in all ranks it is made almost impossible to achieve a real basis of interest in the men themselves. What follows from that, and is indeed part of it, is the attention to welfare. Welfare cannot be divorced from—to use the awful modern phrase—man-management. Welfare cannot be put out to the expert and the technician; it must be a problem as between the officer and the men under his direct command.
The other difficulty to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred was overspecialisation. He, of course, knows far more than I could possibly know about that problem, but there again I wonder whether some of the difficulty which is being experienced by the Royal Air Force is not due to the fact that the recruiting posters and circulars, which call attention to the openings for so many different trades and groupings of work in the Force itself, do tend to make those entering the Royal Air Force—and I just ask the question—look far more at the job they are to do, which may be useful to them when they leave the Royal Air Force, than feel that they are entering a military organisation whose job is, not so much to train this, that and the other kind of tradesman, as to train something which is one of the three great Forces upon which this country depends for its safety at all times. I wonder whether, before a man ever gets into the R.A.F., the emphasis is not being put a little too much upon what is to happen to him after he leaves the Royal Air Force? I am not certain that the appeal is entirely rightly conceived today.
These are just obiter dicta on my part, but I have been wanting to put those two points to the Secretary of State for a long time. I hope he will give them and the other points raised in the Debate full consideration, even if he cannot answer them all tonight. I will end by saying that I hope none of the criticisms, and weighty criticisms, which have been made from different parts of the House will be held to mean that we in any way denigrate the value of the Royal Air Force or fail to appreciate the wonderful service it has rendered and is still rendering to the nation. Certainly not. One can criticise administrative matters without casting any slur upon a great Service, and I hope that is perfectly clear. I do not know about the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—eccentric views are all part of the conglomeration of Parliament—but we hope that no one will think that we do not all feel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a tremendous responsibility in his job. After all, Parliament votes enormous sums of money, and if as a result of the criticisms made improvements follow and we get a more efficient instrument for our policies, that is what we require.
My last word would be this. I hope that this year at any rate the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find it possible a little more to lift the veil of secrecy which has hung over the Royal Air Force ever since the war. We still do not know its strength; we still do not know how effective an instrument it is today. The information which was available before the war on all Service matters is not yet given to Parliament, and for my own part I cannot see why it should not be. The dangers of 1949 are really no greater in that respect than were the dangers of 1939, yet in 1939 far more generous information was given than is vouchsafed to us today. I hope that that also will receive the consideration of the right hon. and learned Gentleman before we come to the detailed Estimates. Tonight we have had a short preview, with pointed comments from my hon. and gallant Friend which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to answer.

7.0 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson): Recently a spate of criticism in various parts of the country

has been levelled against the Royal Air Force, and, like the unbalanced state of the Force, a great deal of that criticism is also unbalanced. Tonight, we are grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) for raising these matters. Whatever differences there may be on other issues, we are certainly on common ground in concerning ourselves with the welfare and effectiveness of one of our defence Services. All the speeches which have been concerned with the state of the Royal Air Force have, in my opinion, been on a constructive basis, and directed towards helping the Royal Air Force. I should like, in turn, to deal with most of the points that have been raised on that basis. There may be some with which I am not able to deal, but I will certainly take steps to follow them up with the necessary information.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield raised the question of conscripts, and argued that conscription will never suit the Royal Air Force. Let me at once admit that a properly manned Air Force must have, as its hard core, a large proportion of highly-trained regular personnel; indeed, that is what we are seeking to achieve. At present, therefore, the size and striking power of the Royal Air Force are restricted by the fact that we have not the balanced pyramid of trained manpower behind the front line, which modern equipment must have if it is to be properly operated. The explanation of this is, of course, that since the end of the war, as the House well knows, the Royal Air Force has demobilised over one million men.
As regards the regular strength of the Force, this was only 40,000 at the end of the war, of whom 20,000 have since left the Force. At present we have 20,000 men in the Force who were serving in 1939. The regular strength today stands at about 125,000, but I frankly admit that a large number of officers, airmen and airwomen have, at present, far less experience than would be considered necessary in normal times. Of the 100,000 regular airmen and airwomen, 50,000 have less than three years' experience, while only 20,000 were serving in 1939.
The effective strength of the Royal Air Force is, therefore, lower than the figures of its strength might suggest for the following reasons: First, because the


average level of experience is very low; second, there is a serious lack of balance between the trades. Some trades are seriously under-manned while there are surpluses in others. We have deficiencies in the radar trades—the radar fitter and the radar mechanic—as well as the wireless fitter and the wireless mechanic, whereas we have a surplus of aircraft fitters and engine fitters, which are just as important trades. That is the state in which we find ourselves today. Third, as one would expect in these conditions, the proportion of men in training at present is high and that, in itself, reacts upon the proportion of staff necessary to engage in training.
While we are building up the hard core of regulars, therefore, the National Service man is indispensable. At present, for example, there are 109,000 National Service men out of a total of 210,000 airmen who are in the ground trades of the Force. In the past the National Service men, owing to their length of service—this was mostly during the war and after when the average service was two years plus—have often been as valuable as the regular airmen. With the reduced period of 18 months they continue to be essential to fill our manpower requirements. Moreover, although National Service does not provide us with highly skilled, fully trained reserves, it does ensure that the National Service man, who goes to the Reserve, is a semi-skilled tradesman, who will, at any rate, be of some value in the event of a new emergency.
Before leaving the question of the conscript, it indicates the attraction that the Royal Air Force still has for the youth of our country when I state that in December last 22,000 young men opted for the Royal Air Force out of 59,000 called up; of these 22,000 more than 4,000 expressed a preference for flying duties. That is a very interesting commentary on that particular side of the problem.
None the less it is our policy that the highest possible proportion of the strength of the Royal Air Force should consist of regulars. It is for this reason that we are seeking, as the Prime Minister said last night, in his broadcast, to stimulate recruiting to the maximum practical extent. We are receiving, in the Royal Air Force, as in the case of

the Army, assistance from those who are connected with parties other than the Government party. On the question of recruiting, it is only right to say that we are still not attracting enough regular recruits of the right type and quality, but it would be a mistake to think that the present state is as unsatisfactory as is sometimes implied by statements made both in the House and outside.
Bearing in mind that we have serious-handicaps which did not exist before the war, it is no mean achievement to have maintained the regular recruiting figures at their present rate. I say this in no party spirit, but as a fact, that with the single exception of 1938, the present rate of recruiting exceeds anything which we achieved before the war. In 1937, for example, the intake was about 14,000; in 1948 it was nearly 20,000, and since 1st January, 1946, we have secured well over 100,000 regular recruits. That is no mean record, and it puts a more favourable gloss on the situation than might otherwise have been the case.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Surely, before the war the Royal Air Force was very much smaller in numbers, the equipment was less complicated and no National Service men were required? The total figure was considerably lower.

Mr. Henderson: Oh, yes. I was not making a party point. Today, we have a competitor in the fact that we have full employment and a reasonable level of wages, and that has a bearing on the recruiting problem. The Royal Air Force, in 1938, had a Regular strength of 110,000 to 120,000. From what one reads in the newspapers, one would think that the source of supply had almost completely dried up, that people were indifferent to the Royal Air Force and that the youth of the country was no longer interested. I am entitled to point out that in the last two or three years, although we have not got sufficient numbers, we have, nevertheless, recruited well over 100,000.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: It would be helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could express the recruitment for 1947 and 1948 in terms of percentages of the total personnel in the Royal Air Force. We should get a better picture of how recruiting is going if that were possible.

Mr. Henderson: I cannot do that now, but I will have it done. It will depend on what the respective targets were, and I am not able to say what they were at the moment. I will certainly obtain that Information for the hon. Member.

Wing-Commander Millington: My right hon. and learned Friend said that 100,000 people had been recruited since 1946. Can he say what percentage of those were trained airmen who re-engaged, and can therefore be used for N.C.O. instructor duties? How many are ab initio and are of comparatively little use to the Royal Air Force until they are trained?

Mr. Henderson: I am diffident about drawing on my memory where statistics are concerned, but my recollection is that 28,000 are what we call "bounty men" who have re-engaged for three, four or five years. That suggests that the best part of 70,000 came direct from civil life.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield made comments about exercise "Sunrise" which took place recently, and was somewhat critical about the information department of the Air Ministry. The hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) supported him. During the 15 months during which I have served in the Air Ministry I have usually found the information department extremely efficient. Blame cannot always be placed on an information department if there is little publicity of the kind required, because we must have the co-operation of the newspapers. While I certainly have no complaint to make against the newspapers, it is for them to decide to what extent and when they will afford space for the information supplied by the Air Ministry. In connection with "Sunrise," it is true that there were difficulties with one important national newspaper in which I was engaged in controversy, but, broadly speaking, the newspapers adequately published the statements which were issued by the Air Ministry giving the Air Ministry's explanation of what took place during that operation.

Mr. Teeling: I was not present when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) referred to those points, but I have always found the public relations department at the Air Ministry extremely efficient. It now very often finds itself in

the position of not being given enough of the right material to sell to the public though that is not its fault.

Mr. Henderson: I am very glad to have the hon. Gentleman's testimonial to the efficiency of that branch of the Department. It is well deserved. It may well be that a good deal of material is put out through the information department but it is for the newspapers to decide to what extent they will publish it.
The hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) referred to discipline in the Royal Air Force. The subject of re-posting has given me a great deal of anxiety because in my travels I have come in contact with station commanders, probably married men with families, who have been moved to new posts after six or eight months at a particular station. I do not think that is the case by and large throughout the Force. However, we have had additional difficulties by reason of the rundown of personnel. During the war many station commanders were temporary officers and they have been going out under the release scheme. There have been constant vacancies as a result. Those posts have had to be filled.
That probably meant advancement for certain station commanders—such as from a three-squadron station to a four-squadron station—but to some extent re-posting has been inevitable. I agree entirely with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said when he deprecated re-postings which could be avoided. I will look into the matter again and satisfy myself that everything is being done, as I believe it is, to minimise re-postings.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman was somewhat critical of present leadership in the Force. I believe the hon. Member for Brighton also referred to the need for opportunities for youth. I can, at any rate, say that as a beginning we have just appointed one of the most brilliant fighter-leaders of the war as Commander-in-Chief, Fighter Command, at the age of 46. Air Vice-Marshal Huddleston, whose age is, I believe, 40, has been appointed to a very important post in connection with Western Union defence arrangements. That is a beginning on the road on which those hon. Members wish us to travel.
It is true that the standards of morale in the Royal Air Force are not entirely satisfactory at present. There are several reasons for this. By the time the war ended the Royal Air Force had expanded many times over, to a peak strength of 1,250,000 men and women. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must know that as a result there was an acute shortage of experienced officers and non-commissioned officers, and officers and airmen with pre-war experience were often promoted to assume responsibilities for which they had not the necessary background and training. Moreover, during the war trained officers were pre-occupied with operational tasks. General duties officers, in particular, had very little time to devote to the welfare of the ground airmen. As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite said—and I have always taken that view—one cannot attach too much importance to the welfare of the men. I believe that the real test of a fighting Force lies in the morale of the Force as well as in its training, and its morale depends upon the way the personnel are looked after. That does not mean bedroom lamps or taking the men breakfast in bed; it just means giving them reasonable living conditions, reasonable prospects of a career, and the assurance and feeling that they are being treated as human beings and not merely as machines.
The deterioriation in discipline and morale led the Air Council, at the end of 1946, to issue instructions to Commanders-in-Chief that steps were to be taken to secure a marked and steady improvement in the discipline of the Service. I know the term "man management" is not a colourful one, but specific training in man management is given during officer training and at various stages of his career an officer will fill posts in which this responsibility is pronounced. The effect of this re-emphasis on the responsibility of the junior officers will only be felt gradually throughout the Service, as time passes.
It would take me some time to deal with the many points that have been raised, so I will deal with one on the technical side. After all, this is a technical Force. The hon. and gallant Member raised a measure of criticism of the three-prong system. First I will deal with centralised servicing, which is a new scheme in the Force. This means

that certain operations are carried out centrally on a station instead of separately in each squadron or flight. No doubt in the early days the practice was to do the servicing in the flight, but now it is by no means a revolutionary departure because in some cases workshops were centralised on stations before the war. All that has happened has been that the centralising of servicing has been carried a little further. The object is simply to save manpower. This is not a question of planning in relation to any political programme; this is a scheme that has been evolved within the Service itself by the officers who have spent their lives in the Service, and who, apparently, have come to the conclusion that this method would save skilled manpower. It works out that a given number of men in a central scheme can do the work of a much larger number of tradesmen separated into small parties. There is also a saving in that they need fewer highly trained supervisors.
The objection, as was pointed out, is that the squadron tends to become less of a self-contained unit, but we cannot put the clock back. For one thing, we cannot afford, either in war or peace, to waste skilled men and, for another, whether we like it or not, the days are past when the general duties officer could have enough technical knowledge to supervise all the work of technical servicing. No doubt, in the past, when firearms were first introduced it was pointed out that the use of the bow was beter for the physique and probably for the moral qualities of the troops, but there comes a point when technical efficiency must over-ride such considerations if wars are to be won. On the other hand, we have not been led blindfold by the technicians in this matter, because the dangers of too centralised a system have been well known for many years. I do not believe, that centralisation in the Royal Air Force has been carried to the limit. For example, daily servicing has been left with the squadrons under the squadron commanders.
The three-prong system, to which the hon. and gallant Member referred, is as he knows, not a product of the centralised system. It is quite different. It is simply a recognition of the fact that the responsibilities of the R.A.F. commander lie in three main fields: flying, administration and servicing. I, for one, would not under


estimate the tremendous importance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman attaches to flying, and to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Wing-Commander Millington) referred in his jocular remark at the beginning of his speech, but I think they will both agree that there would be little flying done if there were not the most efficient and adequate servicing behind it. Therefore we have divided this responsibility into these three categories which provide the commander of the station with a deputy in each field. The head of the flying staff is, of course, a general duties officer, and the head of the administrative staff is frequently one. The head of the technical staff is normally a technical officer and, I think, rightly so.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the Royal Air Force Regiment, and asked why it was necessary to have such a body in existence. There may be two views about the Royal Air Force Regiment; there probably are. There may be others besides the hon. and gallant Gentleman who take the view that there is no need for it, but the primary and most important task of the Regiment is to work out and keep alive the technique of airfield defence—infiltration, saboteurs, air attack by parachutists. We all know from the experiences of the Second World War how important it is, and how disastrous it was in many cases when airfields which were not properly defended by ground Forces were attacked by parachutists. Therefore we seek to do two things: to provide an Armed Force which will have the responsibility of providing for the defences of airfields, and also provide skilled instructors to train the R.A.F. as a whole in ground combat.
After all, this is a technical force. Its primary function is not ground combat but, in days of modern war, it is common ground that anyone concerned in any one of the three Services, even though it may be in an administrative capacity, should be trained to play his part in the event of sudden attack, for example, by parachutists. The task of defending its airfields falls on the Royal Air Force as a whole, and this means that the R.A.F. personnel on any station, whatever their individual trades, must be capable of

providing the bulk of the defence Force. The full-time Royal Air Force Regiment which, incidentally, at the moment totals only about 2½ per cent. of the strength of the whole Royal Air Force, is the means by which we seek to achieve that end.
With regard to the extra flying pay for the general duties officer above the rank of flying officer, the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the general duties officer of these ranks should be given extra flying pay. He said that in the General Duties Branch the inclusive rate of flying officers and pilot officers is 3s. a day higher than that for officers of the non-professional ground branches, but that the rates for the higher ranks are the same as those for the corresponding ranks of the ground branches. He was quite fair in admitting that there are compensations. The General Duties Branch officers receive compensation in that they receive promotion to flight lieutenant after 3½ years' total service, as compared with six years in the Secretarial and Equipment Branches.
Promotion to the higher ranks, of course, is by selection to meet establishment requirements, but it is anticipated that General Duties Branch officers will, on the average, be promoted to squadron leader four years, and to wing commander six years earlier than officers of the Technical Branch. I consider that that is a very reasonable compensation for the alteration which took place in 1945 after the new code came into operation whereby this extra flying pay was restricted to the junior officers of the G.D. Branch.
In conclusion, I echo the words of the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), and, in spite of any misgivings there might be, I have certainly never sought to mislead the House or the nation by under-estimating the difficulties which confront the Royal Air Force today in view of the position in which it finds itself following the three years of rundown. I hope that when we have to deal with the Estimates I shall be in a position, if not to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman all the information for which he asks, at any rate to submit a progress report indicating that we are seeking to carry out what I said we would try to do in my Estimates speech last March—


to commence building up what I called the third Royal Air Force. I said then that that would take time. I said, for example, that many of the trades in groups A and B take up to two years to train. I have already said tonight that 100,000 have come in during the last three years. To borrow a phrase which was used yesterday, I think it would be a criminal act on my part, or on the part of any other responsible Minister dealing with the Royal Air Force, to suggest that in a matter of months, or even a year or two years, we shall be able to produce an efficient and balanced Air Force comparable with what we had in the peak days during the war.
I believe, however, that in spite of the difficulties with which the Royal Air Force is confronted today, the spirit of the officers and men, on the whole, is extremely good; that in spite of the suggestions which have been made in various quarters outside this House, the morale throughout the Service on the whole is good, that, broadly speaking, discipline, although it can always be improved, is not in such a state as to cause us any anxiety, and that there is still a great deal of pride throughout all ranks of the Royal Air Force and a feeling that they are well able and willing to maintain, if necessary, the great traditions of the Royal Air Force of the past.

Orders of the Day — GERMAN ASSETS, UNITED KINGDOM

7.33 p.m.

Mr. David Eccles: Largely owing to the efficiency of the Royal Air Force in the war, I am able to draw the attention of the House to one of the aspects of German reparations. The subject I want to raise is the serious failure on the part of the Treasury to stand up for the rights of British creditors against German debtors. I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for coming here this evening, but I do not think I need apologise to him for the short notice which he has had of my intention to raise this matter, since it is entirely the fault of the Treasury that the occasion is so urgent.
When the war ended, the representatives of the United Nations met in Paris to discuss the problem of German reparations, and in December, 1945, the Paris Reparations Agreement was published.

Article 6 of that Agreement deals with German External assets, and paragraph A of that Article says:
Each Signatory Government shall, under such procedures as it may choose, hold or dispose of German enemy assets within its jurisdiction in manners designed to preclude their return to German ownership or control and shall charge against its reparation share such assets (net of accrued taxes, liens …
There was apparently some doubt as to the precise meaning of that Article, and two months later, in January, 1946, Accounting Rules were published which defined beyond any shadow of dispute what was meant by the words which I have just read.
In Article 6 (D) of these Rules these words appear:
In applying the provisions of paragraph A above, assets which were the property of a country which is a member of the United Nations or its nationals who were not nationals of Germany at the time of the occupation or annexation of this country by Germany, or of its entry into war, shall not be charged to its reparation account.
The upshot of this is that each signatory to the Paris Agreement has the right to use German assets within its jurisdiction in the first place to satisfy the legal claims of its nationals against former German owners of those assets.
In other words, where a British bank had lent money to a German bank or a German firm, if the British bank possessed securities against its loan, under the Reparations Agreement it is open to His Majesty's Government to collect those German securities whose owners owe specific debts to British creditors, and out of them to satisfy the British creditors before putting into the general reparations pool what is left over after that procedure. I understand that the right to set off these German assets in this country against the claims of British creditors is an optional right, and the Government can choose whether to exercise it or not. I understand they must make up their minds by 24th January, 1949—next Monday. That is the last day when the Reparations Office in Brussels can, under these agreements, receive the decision of His Majesty's Government accompanied by the list of British claims.
Three years have gone by. Last May this subject was ventilated at considerable length in the Press. Articles appeared in the "Financial Times" pointing out the enormous advantage to Great


Britain if this right of satisfaction of our national creditors were exercised by His Majesty's Government. We now know that the Governments of the United States and the Netherlands, and, for all I know, other United Nations Governments, are availing themselves of this right. Any country which does not do so and puts into the general pool all the German assets which they have seized inside the territory under their jurisdiction, will only get back that proportion which is allotted to them in the final share out. In the case of Great Britain we will get back only 28 per cent. which is our share of the pool of German assets, so that for every £100 which His Majesty's Government put into this pool and which might have gone wholly to satisfy one of these British creditors, we shall lose £72.
To the astonishment of those who represent the British claims against German debtors a letter was received in December last giving the Treasury's decision not to avail themselves of the right of paragraph 6 (A) of the Paris Agreement to set off the German assets here against the British claims. I do not know what precisely was the reason behind this refusal. In the letter some very obscure words were used to the effect that it would favour one creditor against another if the right were exercised. If the right were exercised those creditors who have been prudent enough to secure some form of lien on German property against the loan they had advanced would get 100 per cent. repayment of their credit if the security is big enough, and there would therefore be less in the pool with which to satisfy other British creditors who never had any specific hold upon some German property.
The explanation given in the letter presupposes that His Majesty's Government were thinking only of the right to set off a specific piece of German property against the debt to which it had been attached. I understand that nothing of that kind is being done in the United States. What they are doing is to collect all the German assets and put them into a pool, and from that pool to satisfy all the claims of United States nationals whether those claims were tied up or not to any particular form of collateral security. Then, if there is any balance left over, the United States will put it into the general reparation pool out of which

they will get 28 per cent. and Great Britain will get 28 per cent.
This matter was raised in another place this week, when the answer of the Government spokesman was unsatisfactory. The same answer would have been given to my Question on today's Order Paper which was not reached. I have been courteously given a copy of the answer by the Treasury. The Treasury now say that they want all British creditors having these claims to put them in as quickly as possible before the last day, which is next Monday, which is three years after the time when the Treasury might have started this process, and that they are still considering whether or not to take any action under paragraph 6 (A). That is not good enough. The British creditors want a firm assurance now that the same procedure as is applied in the United States to protect United States creditors of Germany will be adopted here and that conditions at least as favourable will be given to British creditors. Why should we make a present to the rest of the United Nations in the way that is suggested?
I want a specific assurance that the method which the Treasury will adopt will be to aggregate all the German assets in this country into one fund out of which all British claims will be first settled before any balance at all is paid into the general reparations pool. I have read carefully the original Agreement and the accounting rules that were published afterwards. So far as I can understand those documents—and they seem to me perfectly plain—His Majesty's Government have the right to do that. I want the Economic Secretary to tell us when he replies whether he agrees that we have the right to do the same as is being done by the United States Government. That right seems explicit in these documents. We want an assurance that that is the Government's policy.
I must say in conclusion that for a Department like the Treasury to leave this matter till within four days of the final date, and after three years have gone by, implies either that they are not willing to take the trouble, or for some other reason which the Economic Secretary may give us, to save this country approximately 72 per cent. of £14 million. My information is that the proportion of the standstill credits given


by persons who are able to trace their debt through to a piece of German property to which it has been tied up is something in the neighbourhood of £12 million, to which another £2 million has to be added. We can get the whole of that £14 million for the British creditors, whereas if we put it into the pool we shall get only 28 per cent. of the £14 million. That is the situation and I hope very much that we shall have a clear answer about it from the Economic Secretary.

7.46 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): So far from complaining of the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) for raising this matter at rather short notice, I would assure him that we are very grateful to him for this opportunity of giving publicity to the fact that claims should be put in, as he has said, before 24th January, in the case of those who think they have a claim on these assets.
The hon. Member rehearsed the main facts of the story—adequately, I think—but in one respect he went a little astray. He said that this was an issue between German debtors on the one hand and the claims of British creditors on the other. That really is not the main issue. What makes this a very difficult matter is that the main issue is between different classes of British creditors. There are two broad classes of British creditors who are concerned with the German assets now held by the Custodian of Enemy Property. First of all, there are those British creditors who have a claim on a German debtor who was the owner of some of the assets now held in this country. Those were British creditors who, as the hon. Member said, can trace their claims to a specific asset in this country. The other broad class consists of those who are not in that position and who cannot make a specific claim: for instance, there are the holders of the old Dawes and Young Bonds.
Broadly speaking, there are three courses which the British Government can adopt. First, they can do what the hon. Member was advising them to do—treat all German assets now held by the Custodian as a general fund out of which to pay all British creditors of Germany. That course would treat all creditors alike. The second possible course is to

regard those specific assets as a fund to be handed over to the creditors with specific claims upon it. According to the agreement, if we adopt the course, as the hon. Member wants us to, of offsetting these specific assets, against the amounts which we have to pay into the general reparations fund, we have to give preferential treatment to the specific creditors as compared with the general creditors.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Is that 100 per cent. preferential treatment?

Mr. Jay: It amounts to that, in effect. Thirdly, there is the method of taking the whole of the assets which are held into the Exchequer generally, on the ground that the country as a whole, and almost everybody in it, lost something by the war either in money or in other ways, and that the fairest course would be to share it out in that fashion.
One could argue a long time about those three possible courses of action. Against the first course it could be argued that to make a general division between the general creditors would be unfair to the specific creditors, who in that case would not get so much and feel they ought to be met out of the specific assets they claim. It might be argued that that would be unfair to the community as a whole. They would get no benefit from these assets for they would only go to the creditors of all kinds.
If we adopt the second course, which is most favourable to the creditors with specific claims—who are mainly the old short term creditors involved in the standstill debts in the 1930's—it would be argued by the other creditors that that was unfair to them. They would say that it was a pure accident of history that certain assets of prewar German owners in this country happened to be owned by the same German individuals who were the debtors to the corresponding creditors here. It could be argued that that was a matter of chance and therefore if we followed that course of action it would be unfair to other creditors.
Thirdly, if we adopted the rough justice of saying that these debts must be considered due to the whole British community and took the whole amount into the Exchequer, no doubt all the creditors would argue that that was unfair to them. I think there is no obvious and clearly


correct way out of this dilemma. Arguments can be put up for the three main alternatives—and indeed for variations of them—and tonight I cannot give a definite assurance that we will adopt any of those specific courses. We are still considering the alternatives in an attempt to discover which is the most fair to all the creditors concerned. While doing that, however, we want to give the utmost publicity to the fact that we wish these claims to be registered before 24th January, so that if we choose to adopt the alternative which depends on those claims being registered, it will be open for us to do so and the position will be entirely protected. In order to safeguard that, and to take the opportunity to give the widest possible publicity to this opportunity for registering claims, perhaps I might read the official announcement made by the Treasury a few days ago. Perhaps it did not receive quite as much publicity as we wished. The announcement was as follows:
His Majesty's Government have arranged for the following procedure to be followed by United Kingdom creditors of persons in Germany who have reason to believe that their debtor had assets in the United Kingdom but have not hitherto claimed against assets of that debtor. The claims should be lodged without delay and, if possible, before 24th January; claims received on or after 24th January may be subject to different treatment from those received before. At the moment all that is required is simply notification of the debt (including the debtor's name and address) and of any assets believed to have been held by the debtor. The notification should be addressed to the Administration of Enemy Property Department (Branch X), 32, Warwick Street, Regent Street, W.1.
United Kingdom creditors who have already claimed against the assets of their German debtor (including persons who have made claims to a Custodian of Enemy Property) should also write to the Administration of Enemy Property Department at an early date (but not necessarily during the week) giving particulars of the previous correspondence and of any assets they believe were held by their debtor at the outbreak of war.
His Majesty's Government emphasises that the present action does no more than safeguard the position of creditors, should the eventual decision be that the United Kingdom should avail itself of its rights under Article 6 (a) of Part I of the Final Act of the Paris Conference on Reparation.

Sir William Darling: What is the date of that announcement?

Mr. Jay: The date is 18th January. Having made that announcement we hope

that everything possible has been done to safeguard this situation and it will be entirely open to us, if on consideration that appears to be the fairest way, to make the type of distribution which the hon. Member advises. But in thanking him for giving us this chance to give publicity to the matter, I cannot say definitely which alternative we shall adopt.

Mr. Eccles: Will the hon. Gentleman say by which date His Majesty's Government have to make up their minds whether they put these British assets into the pool? Can he give an assurance that—whatever may be the decision about the ways in which they are shared in this country—in no circumstances will they be put into the general pool?

Mr. Jay: I cannot give an assurance that we shall in no circumstances put them into the general pool, but the significance of 24th January is that under the rules of the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency claims by specific creditors have to be registered with the British Government before 24th January if we are to avail ourselves of the rights under Article 6 (A).

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I must confess I cannot regard this as a satisfactory situation. We have here an option, which was posed to us as far back as 1945, nearly four years ago. We are now taking last-minute steps, four days before the expiry of the time limit in which on certain essential things we have to end that option, certain action to safeguard our position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the allocation of the assets among various classes of creditors in this country is difficult. I agree that there are arguments for and against all three of the alternatives he suggested, but the Government have had more than three years to consider the respective merits, and surely during that time they could have arrived at a decision.
It seems to me that as matters now stand there is grave risk that certain creditors may be gravely prejudiced. It is not very long for an announcement only made on 18th January to percolate to numerous people all over the country and enable them to register their claims by 24th January. I take it that any individual who has not registered his claims by then


will lose his right. The 24th is the date by which all claims have to be registered. I think it is quite intolerable and wholly unnecessary that any risk should have been run—if the Government finally decide to exercise their option—and that any individual who might have benefited from that option should be unable to do so. We unhesitatingly condemn the indecision in this case. I do not think it is even a humane indecision which has prevented the Government reaching any conclusion up to now.
I pass to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Eccles) made. Are we to understand that the Government are not bound, by 24th January, to have decided and to notify the authorities that they are going to exercise this option, and that if they do not take any steps before 24th January it will be none of these three difficult alternatives to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but a fourth—that is of paying out all the assets we hold in this country into the general pool and trusting to luck as to the amount we shall get back?
Difficult as it may be to hold the scales fairly between different classes of creditors in this country, an even more overriding consideration is what the net benefit is to be to the nation. if by exercising the option, we are likely in the long run to get from the country as a whole a bigger share of reparations than by refusing to exercise that option, then we should exercise that option, even if it does lead to certain difficulties and perhaps certain grievances in the distribution within the country of the assets that are available.
We have to bear in mind what the country as a whole is to get out of it. I desire the assurance of the hon. Gentleman that a decision of a kind which may mean some millions to the finances of this country has not to be made by next Monday, because if that is so, it is tragic that a Minister should come here on a question of this importance on a Thursday evening and say that the Government cannot yet make up their minds upon a matter which they have finally to decide by Monday of next week. I hope it will be possible for that difficult process of coming to a decision soon to be completed. This matter has been drawn out beyond all possible apology. We have now had considerable experience of the Government. We

give them one year for consideration, we give them a second year for active consideration, we give them a third year for urgent consideration; but at the end of that period we think that a decision should be taken. They have had the whole of these three years. The time has now come when they should take the plunge.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Jay: If I may have the leave of the House, since the right hon. Gentleman asked me two questions, I will answer them. First, the right hon. Gentleman asked why this announcement was not made sooner. He may be partly under a misconception about the facts. The fact is that in any case the great majority of these creditors, and all who are concerned with any large sums, have registered their claims long ago, and have been continually in touch with the Treasury throughout recent months. The whole subject has been repeatedly discussed. It is certain that so far as any large sums are concerned, this action was quite unnecessary.

Mr. Stanley: Is the hon. Gentleman only concerned with large creditors?

Mr. Jay: No. That is one of the reasons why I was about to say that we thought it necessary, as a final safeguard, to make a public statement in addition.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether the British Government had to decide on their course of action on this point before 24th January. The answer is: No, we do not have to decide vis-à-vis the Inter-Allied Reparations Agency by 24th January, but we cannot decide in the particular fashion which the right hon. Gentleman has recommended, after that date unless these claims have been registered by 24th January. Therefore, we are entirely protected. It is perfectly free and open to us after 24th January, to choose whichever alternative seems the most equitable.

Mr. Eccles: May I, by leave of the House, ask the Economic Secretary how he can square what he has said with the facts which he knows? He knows that in December a letter signed by the Governor of the Bank of England went round saying the Treasury were not going to exercise their rights under Article 6 (A). This decision implied that none of this collection of information was to be under


taken. He knows the trouble that followed in the City of London, and that Lord Woolton raised the matter in another place last Tuesday. It was in answer to a question put in another place that the Government went back on their decision. They announced that they would collect the information which would not have been wanted if a decision had been taken once and for all not to exercise the right under Article 6 (A). The Economic Secretary cannot get away with the sort of explanation which we have just had.

Mr. Jay: I do not quite know what course the hon. Member wants us to adopt. If we are to adopt the course which I understand him to be recommending tonight, it is necessary for us to take the action which we have taken. I should have thought that to that extent the hon. Member would be grateful to be told that we do not close our minds against that alternative. That is as far as I can go in giving him an assurance tonight.

Mr. Eccles: I am grateful for the fact that the Treasury have reconsidered their decision, but I am not grateful when a Minister says that the only reason his Department have asked for this information late, was because they intended all the time to put in these claims on 24th January, when they had written round the City saying that they were not going to exercise the right. It is no use the Economic Secretary expressing dissent. He can see for himself a copy of the letter which stirred up all this trouble, a letter in which the Bank of England announced the decision of the Treasury.
I welcome the fact that some reconsideration is proceeding but I now want the assurance which we have not yet got tonight that these assets will not be put into the pool. If they are, Great Britain will get only 28 per cent. instead of the whole amount. I believe that the correct course is that all the creditors should be satisfied out of this pool but if some people have been prudent enough to tie up a specific debt against a specific piece of German property, why should they not be rewarded for their prudence by getting some priority? It seems common business sense that they should do.

Orders of the Day — OLD PEOPLE'S PARTY, OLDHAM

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I wish to raise a matter which affects the town which I have the honour to represent. In this year of grace, 1949, Oldham will celebrate the centenary of its inception as a borough, and in doing so the whole of Oldham—men of all creeds, parties and classes—will unite together in a series of celebrations which I believe will be unparalleled in the history of the town. Oldham has the right to claim the indulgence of this House, not only because of its long representation in this House, going back to long before it became a borough, or because Cobbett was its first Member, but because it can claim to have made a unique contribution to our prosperity. In its long history men of Oldham fought in the Armada; troops of Bonnie Prince Charlie were at Oldham; men of Oldham fought with courage at Waterloo and Peterloo. The Oldham inquest on Peterloo is a matter of history.
On this occasion Oldham will, as I have said, look back on the last hundred years of its history, during which it has faced the vicissitudes of industrial life with indomitable fortitude and courage, and with hope and confidence for the future. During these celebrations it is natural, right and eminently proper that there should be a desire to pay some special tribute to the old people of the town who have contributed to its prosperity by long years of industry and often by long years of privation.
I wish to correct any misapprehension, if there be any, about the way I put a Question yesterday. I had approached the right hon. Lady on this matter before, and I apologised for raising it again at short notice. In doing so, I suffer more than she does. I have had no opportunity of refreshing myself with papers which I hope she has now had an opportunity to look at. She always receives me with courtesy, as she did on this occasion, but I have not yet obtained the result which I hope to obtain in the course of the evening.
A request was made, a modest one, it might even appear to be a trifling one, but it is one of fundamental principle and of fundamental importance, and it is right that the House should spend a


few minutes dealing with the matter. We are not asking for anything extra for the aged people. The town is organising on an unprecedented scale what Lancashire calls a "high tea," though I must say that what Lancashire used to call a "high tea" is not what it is able to call a "high tea" today.
I do not want to utter one word of controversy, but I have to say this because it is a matter of comment in Oldham. Many people read in the papers about turtles being brought by air for the Lord Mayor's banquet and being fed on champagne and oysters to produce the appropriate flavour for soup. I admit that the Ministry of Food had nothing to do with that. It is one more manifestation of the individualism of private enterprise. Many read of it with disgust, and none wants to read of it again.
We have several thousand old age pensioners who will, we hope, be present on this occasion. There may be more, but we realise that some will be prevented from attending by infirmity and sickness. If we were able to engage caterers, rations would, of course, be available. Because this is an effort to be conducted by the town itself, not by any party, but by the borough under the auspices of the Mayor and Corporation, because of a technicality, rations are not obtainable. It is to deal with that technicality that I am raising his matter tonight. If it were a meeting of Elks or a meeting of Buffalos, or a meeting of any of the many organisations that properly meet together from time to time to engage in festivities, they would hire a caterer and they would get rations. All we are asking tonight is that arrangements should be made for these old people to have a little meat, no more than they would be entitled to, on this one occasion in a hundred years so that we shall not have to abandon this historic event because of a mere comma or semicolon in a Regulation of the Ministry of Food. If there be such a comma or semicolon, we could take it out in ten minutes and put the matter right.
I hope my right hon. Friend will not say that our rules and regulations must be observed. Most of our greatest successes have been achieved by people who sometimes had sense enough to know that there are times when rules can conveniently and properly be ignored. After

all, if Nelson had not ignored rules he would have lost his great battle, and we might not have been here discussing this matter tonight. It is not beyond the bounds of ingenuity and ability to devise a method to prevent this important function from being abandoned. I would be content not to receive meat; indeed, I personally would prefer ox tongue to corned beef if it be a matter of rations, but I do ask the right hon. Lady to say tonight that she thinks this application is an exceptional one and will regard it with sympathy and understanding. I ask her to see that we do not have to abandon this historic and important event in Oldham, upon which the town is embarking with such a sense of municipal feeling and with so real justification.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Delargy: I strongly support the innocent and very sensible request of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). After all, the centenary of the historic borough of Oldham occurs, as the more perceptive Members will readily observe, only once in a hundred years, and therefore the danger of establishing a precedent is somewhat remote. I know very well that the Minister could produce arguments against this request, arguments precise, pedantic, logical and dull, as dull as the menu in a London restaurant. But we are not asking for logic and regulations tonight. We are asking for a generous gesture, a warm hearted gesture in the midst of cold officialdom.
The granting of this request will not decrease our meat stocks. It will not require very lengthy negotiations or even require the permission of Senor Miranda But it will give pleasure to a group of aged people who are celebrating a great achievement of their town. In other words, it will encourage them in their civic pride. The pride and love of one's own town or village or parish is something to be encouraged. For those reasons therefore which I am certain that the right hon. Lady will have found to be overwhelming and compelling, I hope that she will accede to the request made tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I wish particularly to support the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) in the plea put forward on behalf of the old age pensioners of Oldham. I do so because the old age


pensioners at the present moment, whatever may be said in this House or outside, are having a very lean time with the rations that they get. And surely the celebration of the centenary of Oldham is the day when the Ministry of Food should at least put a little bit of elastic into the regulations.
I have read the speeches made from time to time in the country by the right hon. Lady and when she has been questioned about her sympathies towards old people, she has always said she has every sympathy with the old folks. Here is an opportunity for the right hon. Lady and her Department to manifest that sympathy in a real and practical way. We have a saying in Lancashire that "sympathy without relief is like mustard without beef." We are asking for the beef, what little it is, to be conceded to these old folks. We are not asking her or her Department to perform the miracle of the five barley loaves and the two small fishes. But there is a possibility, and I know that in the right hon. Lady's Department they have the ingenuity and the wit and the business acumen to make this concession to the old folk.
In 1951 in this country there will be a magnificent festival. There will be no need for any person at that festival to make application to the Department of the right hon. Lady for rations. It will be conceded to them without any request at all. Surely when the hon. Member for Oldham and the Borough Council of Oldham and all the institutions that will participate in this great celebration so strongly desire it, the old folks are entitled to the concession which has been applied for.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I know very little about the town of Oldham, but I am very eager to support this application. In fact, all I know about the town of Oldham may be summed up in the names of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) and Mr. Wilfred Mannion. Because Oldham has lost Wilfred Mannion, that seems to me all the better reason why they should have their old pensioners' tea. However, I am sure that kind of argument will not appeal to the Ministry of Food. They would prefer an argument more on the grounds of

statistics. After my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham had approached me about this matter, and put the case as powerfully as he has done this evening, I went to the Library and looked up statistics which will appeal to the Ministry of Food. I have been discovering how many boroughs in this country would be celebrating their centenary, and how much meat would be involved if this proposal were carried out. I have not finished my researches, but I discovered that a great number of our cities and towns would not be involved if the Ministry were to say that they would at any rate relax their regulations in the case of centenary teas. It would not involve a great amount of meat.
Even if the idea were encouraged that every borough should ransack its history to discover exactly when it became a borough and to discover the famous men who had represented it throughout the years, would it not be a good thing? Would it not encourage municipal consciousness? I prophesy that there is not one hon. Member in this House tonight, except my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale), who knows when the centenary of his own borough is to be. If the Ministry of Food relax their regulations, I am sure that every hon. Member will look up the date early tomorrow morning. This will not involve a great amount of meat, and what a centenary it would be in Oldham.
Oldham is a famous city. It has had a wonderful reputation, from the time of William Cobbett to the present day. As far as I know, there is no monument to Cobbett in this country. He is one of the most famous men who ever fought for the people. Surely, the Ministry of Food ought to pay their tribute to William Cobbett who at a time of tremendous distress throughout the countryside, fought for the right of the British people to produce food from their own soil. He fought against the financiers and against all those hon. Gentlemen who sit on the opposite side of the House, who have scuttled from this Debate today. It is most significant that when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham raised this question, there was only one representative of the Conservative Party present. I hope he will give the official view of his party.
On all these grounds, it would be a fine thing if it went out from the House


of Commons tonight that owing to the appeal made in this most democratic of all Assemblies, it had been said that, whatever the regulations, the Ministry of Food were sending out a message to the country, "To hell with the regulations. We are not concerned about them; we are more concerned about what we believe to be the humane thing and what, after examination, we believe to be the practical thing." The Ministry ought to say that they will make this allowance, which will do honour to a great city, to those who have represented that city and to those who have taken the trouble to come along here and to fight for this cause tonight. I have the greatest admiration for the Ministry of Food. I regard the attacks made upon them as the most flagrant and frivolous propaganda. On these grounds, let them come forward and show what a really humane Ministry they are.

8.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I have always looked upon the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) as a friend, but tonight I find that he comes along and presents a united front with Oldham, Platting and Ince. He asked me to say tonight, "To hell with the regulations." I do not think it would be parliamentary to reply to these suggestions. However, I want to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). There is no need for him to tell me of the history of his great town. Perhaps he will remember that I contested the Division of Bury in 1934. On several occasions I was invited to Oldham by some of his constituents and there I partook of a high tea. I know full well what it means. A few minutes ago the hon. Member came into the Members Tea Room where I was taking one miserable cup of tea. From that he gathered that I did not know what he was talking about. I assure him that I am so bullied by hon. Members that I have only time for an ordinary cup of tea. Perhaps one day when I am up in Oldham he will invite me along for a high tea. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) asked me to use my ingenuity, wit and business acumen, and said that then this problem would be solved. Unfortunately, it is not wit that they are asking for: it is meat.
I thought it was significant tonight that not one woman Member intervened, although I see that there is a woman Member sitting on the back benches. Women are mindful of the fact that two days ago my Department had to cut the meat ration from 1s. to 10d. so far as carcase meat is concerned and we had to supplement that 10d. worth of carcase meat by 2d. worth of corned meat. That means a certain amount of hardship to every home in the country. I must remind the hon. Member for Oldham that this is not a question of my hard heart. It is a question of meat supplies.

Mr. Hale: I am sure the right hon. Lady has misunderstood the application which we are making, because this is all bilge. It has nothing to do with the matter. The position simply is that if we employ a caterer we shall get certain rations, but the caterer gets a profit which makes the venture prohibitive. We want permission to do exactly the same thing without the caterer. We do not ask for a farthing's worth more. This would not affect the meat situation because, if there were wealthy enough men in Oldham to pay the money for this occasion, we should get it by employing some one to do the catering. All we ask is for permission to do this without the intervention of the caterer.

Dr. Summerskill: Actually, the hon. Member is wrong. Caterers cannot supply meat for a tea.

Mr. Hale: This is a high tea, and a high tea is a dinner.

Dr. Summerskill: Under the regulations one is not allowed to supply meat for a tea meal. The reason why we have to allow caterers to cater for parties is that the Ministry must exercise some control over food. It would be wrong and irresponsible for my Department to say to any hon. Member who asks for meat for 8,000 people for a tea, "Yes, you can have it without any control whatever." That is why we use the caterers. It is for the purpose of exercising control.

Mr. Hale: The borough corporation are to control this tea.

Dr. Summerskill: I must ask the hon. Member to exercise a little patience.
I want hon. Members to realise what this means. We are invited tonight to


supply meat for 8,000 people for a tea party. In this country today there are 7 million people who qualify for the old age pension. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, who is always a great friend of the old age pensioners, will agree with me when I say that it would be only fair for these 7 million people in different parts of the country, in their various organisations, if they heard of some concession tonight, to ask for a similar concession. It would be entirely wrong for me then to come to this House and to say to hon. Members who represent the constituencies of those old people that they could not enjoy the same concession enjoyed by the constituents of the hon. Member for Oldham. I hope that hon. Members will realise that, although I am observing the regulations, I am observing them in the interests of every Member in this House and in the interests of the old age pensioners.
Furthermore, we give old age pensioners certain extra foods on occasions when they want to have a particular party. For instance they are given certain allowances for golden weddings, but we never give them meat. I think that every one in this House would ask why, if we were to give meat for a centenary, should we not give these poor old people a little meat for their golden weddings. We give extras for christenings and for funerals and for certain other events. The hon. Member is asking for a concession which we have never made on other occasions. When he raised this matter with my right hon. Friend yesterday he said that he could get the meat from Australia. He asked my right hon. Friend whether he might get in touch with his friends in Australia and bring the meat to the old age pensioners in that way. He rather suggested that we were tied by red tape, because whereas he could get it from Australia——

Mr. Hale: Really, the right hon. Lady is misrepresenting me——

Dr. Summerskill: No, I must carry on with my speech. Then, the hon. Member put this supplementary question:
In these circumstances, would my right hon. Friend give permission for application to be made abroad individually for meat to be sent for this occasion?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th January, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 163.]

Mr. Hale: Yes, in the circumstances disclosed in the answer given by the Minister.

Dr. Summerskill: I want to remind the hon. Member of what it would mean. We are at the moment contracting to take the exportable surplus of meat from Australia. It would only mean that we should be taking meat that would otherwise go towards the domestic rations of this country.

Mr. Hale: But the Minister allows the wealthy to have food parcels.

Dr. Summerskill: But the food parcels are limited to a certain amount, for precisely that reason—to prevent people sending to Australia and asking for meat for a thousand people. That is absolutely prohibited.
Therefore, I want the House to realise that we have to do this. I am sure that the hon. Member for Oldham will realise that this is not a pleasant thing for me to have to do. I am always having to say "No," but I look forward to the day when I can say "Yes." I find it extremely unpleasant to have to say "No" to the old age pensioners, but, in this case, if we made a concession, then it would be only right that hon. Members in every part of the House should be able to come to me and say "Well, you did for one hon. Member; I ask you to do it for others." I would not be able to refuse. I want to tell the House that, when the hon. Member wrote to me, we said that we certainly were not unsympathetic. We said that, although we could not give meat, we would give an allowance of tea, milk, sugar and margarine for 8,000 people. I can only suggest that this tea should be given and the meal supplemented with unrationed foods. Perhaps the borough could make arrangements to supply fish and potatoes——

Mr. Hale: What, cook 7,000 pieces of fish and serve them, hot or cold?

Dr. Summerskill: Now, the hon Member is talking about details of administration, and it is not for me to go into that. If that unrationed food were prepared, I am quite sure that the old age pensioners would have a successful party.

Question put and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-seven Minutes to Nine o'Clock.